PDA

View Full Version : Schefter: Rams will take Bradford at #1


MenOfTroy
02-25-2010, 06:31 PM
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35591560/ns/sports-player_news/

ESPN's Adam Schefter told a St. Louis radio station he is "willing to take all bets" on his prediction that the Rams will select Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford with the No. 1 overall pick.

Schefter admits that he has not spoken to the Rams about the issue, but he insists he doesn't need to because he's "heard enough other things" from people around the league that he considers it a lock. Schefter also "promises" that Bradford is a top-5 player in this draft. The Rams are also reluctant to pay the going rate at No. 1 for a defensive player. If Schefter is correct, the Lions are sitting pretty at No. 2 with their choice of Ndamukong Suh and Gerald McCoy.

Source: ESPN 101 St. Louis

murdamal86
02-25-2010, 06:35 PM
I don't think like this move to get Bradford at one.

This should be a good thread

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p276/unstoppable35/popcorn.gif

CashmoneyDrew
02-25-2010, 06:35 PM
This would benefit Tampa Bay more than Detroit, IMO.

FUNBUNCHER
02-25-2010, 06:37 PM
WOW.

Believe it when I see it, but Schefter is usually money when he leaks NFL rumours.

Just so nobody trades up into the top 3 to draft Clausen, this Skins fan will be okay.

ThePudge
02-25-2010, 06:39 PM
This is who I also believe will be the 1st Overall Pick.... Good call Schefter.

no bare feet
02-25-2010, 06:41 PM
Well, I am one for one! : )

TitanHope
02-25-2010, 06:44 PM
Probably the best move for them. They're not going to win unless they have a QB, which is something that can't be said about the DT position (and this is coming from a Titans fan that knows the value of an elite DT).

Although, I'm not a very big Bradford fan.

FUNBUNCHER
02-25-2010, 06:46 PM
I wonder if Bradford is the pick that Spags wants????

vidae
02-25-2010, 06:46 PM
This would benefit Tampa Bay more than Detroit, IMO.

Yeah that's exactly what I was thinking when I first read it, and it could go deeper. The Buccs might be reluctant to trade back if Suh or McCoy are sitting in their laps, which would make it easier for the Chiefs to move down.

LonghornsLegend
02-25-2010, 06:56 PM
I knew this was coming, you just can't keep passing up QB year after year and expecting to compete. They have taken enough D-linemen recently and while they may not have panned out like they wanted you need a franchise QB and they don't have one. If I were them I'd still opt to take Vick, maybe Bradford isn't all the way healthy but give him a year and maybe 2 to strengthen that shoulder and get the offensive line and weapons in place properly.


I wouldn't be in a hurry to rush Bradford to start anytime soon but he's a great fit for them.


I also agree this benefits Tampa Bay even more, Detroit while they have their pick, TB gets one or the other which I think they would be perfectly happy with.

CC.SD
02-25-2010, 06:58 PM
Schefter also says the Chargers will send the Rams #28 for Steven Jackson.

CashmoneyDrew
02-25-2010, 07:00 PM
Yeah, I'm a big Bradford fan, but if they don't surround him with a much better line and they rush to start him, he could very easily flop there.

I guess that could be said about most QB prospects, but IDK, it makes sense to me. :D

scpanther22
02-25-2010, 07:03 PM
I think its a good move.

CC.SD
02-25-2010, 07:04 PM
Sam Bradford is Tim Couch btw

ThePudge
02-25-2010, 07:06 PM
Sam Bradford is Tim Couch btw

I'm not sure St. Louis is necessarily Cleveland..

D-Unit
02-25-2010, 07:08 PM
Scheffer is the anti-Mort. He's always right.

Look for them to try to trade the pick.

Morton
02-25-2010, 07:13 PM
So the top 5 is PROBABLY going to shake out like this:

1. Rams - Sam Bradford
2. Lions - Ndamakung Suh
3. Bucs - Gerald McCoy
4. Redskins - Jimmy Clausen (OR Russell Okung if Shanahan likes Campbell)
5. Chiefs - Russell Okung (OR Eric Berry if Okung is taken)

RWills
02-25-2010, 07:15 PM
Schefter also says the Chargers will send the Rams #28 for Steven Jackson.

I didn't hear this one.

But his Bradford statement is bold, this has to be or he is announced a dunce. It makes sense with new ownership coming in and wanting a face for the franchise.

Not a fan of him as a top 10 nevermind #1, it's interesting that a lot of teams rank Clausen a second rounder

RWills
02-25-2010, 07:16 PM
So the top 5 is PROBABLY going to shake out like this:

1. Rams - Sam Bradford
2. Lions - Ndamakung Suh
3. Bucs - Gerald McCoy
4. Redskins - Jimmy Clausen (OR Russell Okung if Shanahan likes Campbell)
5. Chiefs - Russell Okung (OR Eric Berry if Okung is taken)

Redskins - Anthony Davis (Best Pass protector)

SloppyJoe
02-25-2010, 07:16 PM
that would be fantastic.....Let's go Rams, you need a QB :)

RWills
02-25-2010, 07:18 PM
Scheffer is the anti-Mort. He's always right.

Look for them to try to trade the pick.

Sneider pulls a Ditka to get Bradford

ThePudge
02-25-2010, 07:20 PM
So the top 5 is PROBABLY going to shake out like this:

1. Rams - Sam Bradford
2. Lions - Ndamakung Suh
3. Bucs - Gerald McCoy
4. Redskins - Jimmy Clausen (OR Russell Okung if Shanahan likes Campbell)
5. Chiefs - Russell Okung (OR Eric Berry if Okung is taken)

I wouldn't assume Okung is the only LT prospect that will receive looks in the Top 5. By the time the draft rolls around I wouldn't be surprised to see Anthony Davis occupying that top OT spot and making a strong push for both the 4th and 5th pick.

JRTPlaya21
02-25-2010, 07:22 PM
Darn looks like the Redskins are a lock for Clausen. And I sure was dieing for a LT.

BeerBaron
02-25-2010, 07:23 PM
I've always thought they should go QB, I just expected it to be Clausen.

Bradford scares the hell out of me as a first rounder to begin with, he'd be a nightmare for me at #1 overall.

Spread QBs still scare me.....they've had comparatively limited success in the pros, and Bradford, with questions about arm strength to begin with, is coming off of major shoulder surgery. I don't like it....

But I do think they should go QB. I could go into a multi-paragraph rant about my reasoning if anyone would like...I'm hoping I don't have to.

irishbucsfan
02-25-2010, 07:24 PM
http://solastyear.com/huzzah.jpg

RWills
02-25-2010, 07:25 PM
Darn looks like the Redskins are a lock for Clausen. And I sure was dieing for a LT.

What makes u think they will take him

BeerBaron
02-25-2010, 07:26 PM
I've always thought they should go QB, I just expected it to be Clausen.

Bradford scares the hell out of me as a first rounder to begin with, he'd be a nightmare for me at #1 overall.

Spread QBs still scare me.....they've had comparatively limited success in the pros, and Bradford, with questions about arm strength to begin with, is coming off of major shoulder surgery. I don't like it....

But I do think they should go QB. I could go into a multi-paragraph rant about my reasoning if anyone would like...I'm hoping I don't have to.

I hate getting stuck at the bottom of a page when I'm trying to debate...

Scott Wright
02-25-2010, 07:27 PM
Not surprised at all by this Bradford-to-Rams talk. I've said all along that if the Rams have a quarterback ranked in their Top 5 they simply have to go that direction. As much as I like Suh and McCoy those guys will never turn around that St. Louis franchise, which is in a huge hole right now. The game of football revolves around the quarterback position and as I was just telling my buddy Matt McGuire from WalterFootball.com today every league source I have heard from has Bradford rated ahead of Clausen. We still have to wait on the medical checks but if Dr. James Andrews, a sports medicine legend, is saying Bradford's doing fine then I doubt any team doctor is going to disagree. Personally, I would take Clausen over Bradford though.

Menardo75
02-25-2010, 07:27 PM
He is usually money so this is probably true. This is the right move for the Rams they need a new face to lead that team badly.

RWills
02-25-2010, 07:27 PM
I hate getting stuck at the bottom of a page when I'm trying to debate...

HAHA I destroyed your debate

wogitalia
02-25-2010, 07:30 PM
And with the 2011 #1 pick the St Louis Rams take "insert name here".

And with the 2012 #1 pick the LA Rams take "insert name here".

and yeah yeah, I know they have an owner so dont get all up in arms ;)

I just can't buy Bradford, every time I watch I am unimpressed, I'm not sure if I'm just being blinded by his ugly little rat face or that he throws like a girl, but I just can't look at him and say "this guy looks like a franchise QB". Just screams system QB, just looks no different as a prospect to me than all those solid QBs who have a flaw that makes them a mid round pick.

I just don't like Bradford as a prospect.

RWills
02-25-2010, 07:32 PM
It will be interesting how teams like Washington, Seattle, Cleveland and Buffalo rank Clausen I have seen as high as #4 and as low as second round, add the toe injury and the myths of being a male diva, can he pull a Sanchez? I think his personality helped him a lot last year

Hurricanes25
02-25-2010, 07:32 PM
I've always thought they should go QB, I just expected it to be Clausen.

Bradford scares the hell out of me as a first rounder to begin with, he'd be a nightmare for me at #1 overall.

Spread QBs still scare me.....they've had comparatively limited success in the pros, and Bradford, with questions about arm strength to begin with, is coming off of major shoulder surgery. I don't like it....

But I do think they should go QB. I could go into a multi-paragraph rant about my reasoning if anyone would like...I'm hoping I don't have to.

I agree with all of your points. St. Louis has been bad for a while now and they really need to come away with a franchise QB from this draft. There are too many question marks surrounding Bradford which you pointed out. I just think Clausen is the "safer" pick and the smarter pick for the Rams.

keylime_5
02-25-2010, 07:39 PM
I would take that bet with Shef. Not b/c I think he's wrong, but b/c it's so early and the Rams might get a guy like Mike Vick for all we know, or Bradford could bomb his pro day. I've seen a million "locks" in college recruiting and the nfl draft that it doesn't mean what it should anymore.

ThePudge
02-25-2010, 07:41 PM
Bradford scares the hell out of me as a first rounder to begin with, he'd be a nightmare for me at #1 overall.

Spread QBs still scare me.....they've had comparatively limited success in the pros, and Bradford, with questions about arm strength to begin with, is coming off of major shoulder surgery. I don't like it....


I'm not sure why you're so frightened by Bradford who, unlike spread QBs like Tony Pike and Graham Harrell, was counted on to make mostly NFL reads. The two I noted above, and many spread quarterbacks, take advantage of matchups (like RB vs. DE or WR vs. OLB, TE vs. CB, etc.) and make appropriate pre-snap reads and quick checkdowns throwing against single coverage. Sure he was in a shot-gun formation but it's not too often that the Sooners lined up 5 wide and Bradford showed excellent anticipation skills along with terrific field vision. He had to throw a number of balls into tough areas and in Oklahoma's system it wasn't always just about 1 on 1 situations. When under center his footwork looked good and his throwing mechanics were good always, he just needs more reps there. There's no question in my mind, after basically studying the two for a prolonged period of time, that Bradford's game film is more impressive.

As long as his shoulder checks out in Indianapolis which I'd imagine it will because he rested it for the great portion of the season and it's now late February. His game tape is as good as you'd expect from a top QB, obviously I think with increased reps he'll be right at home in any pro-style offense (especially a West Coast Offense.) At almost 6'4 225, Bradford looks the part, he acts the part, and he has that fresh franchise face. If I'm St. Louis I go for the Oklahoma product here.

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
02-25-2010, 07:42 PM
See sig. Hopefully it is just a smoke screen. If not should keep ticket prices cheap.

TACKLE
02-25-2010, 07:44 PM
"The Golden Rule" almost always wins. The Rams have been drafting solid defensive talent but they need to make a major move. Drafting 2nd, 2nd and 1st is absolutely pathetic. It all starts with the QB. Bradford is the best QB in the draft. They have a solid O-Line. Hopefully they can keep S-Jax and acquire a talented WR in the draft. Suh and McCoy are clearly far superior players but the Rams need to make a drastic change.

ThePudge
02-25-2010, 07:45 PM
See sig. Hopefully it is just a smoke screen. If not should keep ticket prices cheap.

Defensive Linemen sell tickets? Hm... I was always under the impression from a business standpoint a Quarterback that touches the ball every play on offense would sell a bit more. Luckily you provided sound reasoning and used plenty of logic when analyzing Bradford's future and St. Louis' situation.

ericzedwards
02-25-2010, 07:48 PM
And with the 2011 #1 pick the St Louis Rams take "insert name here".

And with the 2012 #1 pick the LA Rams take "insert name here".

and yeah yeah, I know they have an owner so dont get all up in arms ;)

I just can't buy Bradford, every time I watch I am unimpressed, I'm not sure if I'm just being blinded by his ugly little rat face or that he throws like a girl, but I just can't look at him and say "this guy looks like a franchise QB". Just screams system QB, just looks no different as a prospect to me than all those solid QBs who have a flaw that makes them a mid round pick.

I just don't like Bradford as a prospect.


This is the most complete, true, and beautiful post I've ever seen.

RWills
02-25-2010, 07:49 PM
I would take that bet with Shef. Not b/c I think he's wrong, but b/c it's so early and the Rams might get a guy like Mike Vick for all we know, or Bradford could bomb his pro day. I've seen a million "locks" in college recruiting and the nfl draft that it doesn't mean what it should anymore.

I think Vick should go to Buffalo

ThePudge
02-25-2010, 07:49 PM
"The Golden Rule" almost always wins. The Rams have been drafting solid defensive talent but they need to make a major move. Drafting 2nd, 2nd and 1st is absolutely pathetic. It all starts with the QB. Bradford is the best QB in the draft. They have a solid O-Line. Hopefully they can keep S-Jax and acquire a talented WR in the draft. Suh and McCoy are clearly far superior players but the Rams need to make a drastic change.

By April, I don't think people will see that as such a bold statement. I know the defense has been in shambles for years, but so has the QB spot in St. Louis. Even if wins don't come right away they need to show their fans that they have a true direction and Suh & McCoy may not be the best way to do that. Bradford's my prediction for #1 Overall, though I would agree he's far from the best player in this draft. Still, you just don't build franchises on the Defensive Line, a Quarterback who sees every snap on offense has the potential for a far greater result and that's what it's all about when you're in this kind of rebuilding phase.

Clarkw267
02-25-2010, 07:49 PM
Schefter also says the Chargers will send the Rams #28 for Steven Jackson.

Never heard that... I did hear him say that he guarantees the Rams could get more than a #1 for him, and they've turned down more in the past.

hockey619
02-25-2010, 07:50 PM
Scott

You said above that rumors are that most teams have Bradford above Clausen. Did you hear any reasons as to why? Because to my eye Bradford has potential but I dont think he does anything better than Clausen does it. Really, where is it that Bradford is a superior prospect in any category?

Arm- Id say about even, bradford gets way underrated on this
Accuracy - Very close, maybe Bradford its arguable, though Clausen has great timing on throws
System - more questions for bradford
Leadership - who knows but i dont buy the bs about clausen he seems fine he was just a jack*** as a senior in high school/freshman year. seems fine now
Play under pressure - Clausen blows him away, bradford never had much of a chance to prove it though
mechanics - Clausen

Clausen just has an it about him that says if you give him the ball late he'll win you the game. hes got too much confidence, skill, and moxy not to

LonghornsLegend
02-25-2010, 07:52 PM
I hate getting stuck at the bottom of a page when I'm trying to debate...

Lol I hate that too, especially when it's a long post.


I tend to agree with you, but for me before I start throwing the bust word around it depends on how fast they plan on throwing him out there. It seems like nobody has patience enough to draft a veteran and sit a QB for 1-2 years. Who knows how good Rogers would have been starting as a rookie, but it could have only helped to sit and learn so long.


I don't think the Rams have enough at WR right now, nor is their offensive line complete since Bulger was still getting demolished. Playing in a dome should benefit Bradford alot, but they have got to do better then Donnie Avery and a bunch of nobodies. They still need alot of things in place for him to suceed, I wouldn't be trying to throw him out to the wolves just to make fans happy.

Clarkw267
02-25-2010, 08:00 PM
Scott

You said above that rumors are that most teams have Bradford above Clausen. Did you hear any reasons as to why? Because to my eye Bradford has potential but I dont think he does anything better than Clausen does it. Really, where is it that Bradford is a superior prospect in any category?

Arm- Id say about even, bradford gets way underrated on this
Accuracy - Very close, maybe Bradford its arguable, though Clausen has great timing on throws
System - more questions for bradford
Leadership - who knows but i dont buy the bs about clausen he seems fine he was just a jack*** as a senior in high school/freshman year. seems fine now
Play under pressure - Clausen blows him away, bradford never had much of a chance to prove it though
mechanics - Clausen

Clausen just has an it about him that says if you give him the ball late he'll win you the game. hes got too much confidence, skill, and moxy not to

This is what makes Bradford the superior prospect. He's one of the most accurate QB prospects in recent memory. Far more accurate than Clausen. He also has a good frame, and NFL arm.

AkiliSmith
02-25-2010, 08:01 PM
I would think the Rams would want to check out his shoulder, watch him work out and interview him before they decide to pick him or not.

Clausen could go out and destroy his pro day and get picked one. Or they could both get hurt or completely blow at their pro day/interviews.

Too much do to and too much left for each prospect to do before the #1 pick is guaranteed.

Vox Populi
02-25-2010, 08:01 PM
St. Louis is probably a good place for him to end up in anyways, playing in a dome should make things easier for his arm strength which isn't incredible. Playing in Seattle would be tough, but the NFC also has more dome teams and good weather teams too. Definitely plays to his advantage to be with a dome team though.

ThePudge
02-25-2010, 08:02 PM
Scott

You said above that rumors are that most teams have Bradford above Clausen. Did you hear any reasons as to why? Because to my eye Bradford has potential but I dont think he does anything better than Clausen does it. Really, where is it that Bradford is a superior prospect in any category?

Arm- Id say about even, bradford gets way underrated on this
Accuracy - Very close, maybe Bradford its arguable, though Clausen has great timing on throws Bradford shows just if good if not better timing on his throws and has, like Clausen, thrown a full route tree
System - more questions for bradford Agreed, but his system translates far better to the NFL than Mike Leach's, Urban Meyer's, and Brian Kelly.
Leadership - who knows but i dont buy the bs about clausen he seems fine he was just a jack*** as a senior in high school/freshman year. seems fine now But where is the talk about Bradford here, an excellent team leader and great teammate
Play under pressure - Clausen blows him away, bradford never had much of a chance to prove it though Bradford looks good with a man in his face and goes through his progressions as quick as anyone in the nation
mechanics - Clausen In what way? Clausen has great mechanics but what more do you desire from Bradford in terms of throwing mechanics

Clausen just has an it about him that says if you give him the ball late he'll win you the game. (Except for the games that matter like Stanford and USC) hes got too much confidence, skill, and moxy not to

I think people here either forgot how good Bradford was at Oklahoma or want to make Jimmy Clausen better in their mind. Either way, I'm a bit surprised at the general lack of knowledge and the amount of regurgitated bs that's floating around. To compare Jimmy's body of work to Bradford's would be laughable. Sam looks the part at 6'4 225, is the superior athlete, can make every throw, is a great leader with a great personality, and ultimately will appeal more to St. Louis at #1.

P-L
02-25-2010, 08:05 PM
The NFL fan in me wants to see the Rams take Bradford or Clausen at #1. You have to take a quarterback there. However, the Lions fan in me wants them to take Suh or McCoy. I don't want the Lions to have to pick between them and possibly pick the wrong one (if there is a wrong one).

TACKLE
02-25-2010, 08:08 PM
The NFL fan in me wants to see the Rams take Bradford or Clausen at #1. You have to take a quarterback there. However, the Lions fan in me wants them to take Suh or McCoy. I don't want the Lions to have to pick between them and possibly pick the wrong one (if there is a wrong one).

Don't worry. If I were you I would trust Schwartz to make the right decision regarding taking a D-Lineman.

RWills
02-25-2010, 08:08 PM
Lol I hate that too, especially when it's a long post.


I tend to agree with you, but for me before I start throwing the bust word around it depends on how fast they plan on throwing him out there. It seems like nobody has patience enough to draft a veteran and sit a QB for 1-2 years. Who knows how good Rogers would have been starting as a rookie, but it could have only helped to sit and learn so long.


I don't think the Rams have enough at WR right now, nor is their offensive line complete since Bulger was still getting demolished. Playing in a dome should benefit Bradford alot, but they have got to do better then Donnie Avery and a bunch of nobodies. They still need alot of things in place for him to suceed, I wouldn't be trying to throw him out to the wolves just to make fans happy.


I think there receivers are underrated Laurent Robinson and Donnie Avery are healthy can develop, Laurent looked real good before injury and Gibson looked real good for a rookie changing teams in the middle of the year

Michigan
02-25-2010, 08:10 PM
The NFL fan in me wants to see the Rams take Bradford or Clausen at #1. You have to take a quarterback there. However, the Lions fan in me wants them to take Suh or McCoy. I don't want the Lions to have to pick between them and possibly pick the wrong one (if there is a wrong one).

Haha yeah. The one we pass on will become a HOFer and the one we take will become Dan Wilkinson.

San Diego Chicken
02-25-2010, 08:11 PM
This is what makes Bradford the superior prospect. He's one of the most accurate QB prospects in recent memory. Far more accurate than Clausen. He also has a good frame, and NFL arm.


Debatable I'd say. There are two types of accuracy as far as I'm concerned. There's ball placement- the ability to throw a perfect pass in exactly the spot it needs to be. And then there is consistency - the ability to string together completions. In my opinion Clausen has better ball placement while Bradford is better at stringing completions together.

gpngc
02-25-2010, 08:12 PM
Not surprising - especially after all the TB trading up to 1 talk. They don't want to pay that kind of money to anyone other than a QB.

What I'm interested in is whether the Lions go with Suh or McCoy...

KCJ58
02-25-2010, 08:13 PM
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


interesting..... . . .



I really don't like this speculation right before the combine and before anyone's pro days, we shall see what happens

ThePudge
02-25-2010, 08:17 PM
Debatable I'd say. There are two types of accuracy as far as I'm concerned. There's ball placement- the ability to throw a perfect pass in exactly the spot it needs to be. And then there is consistency - the ability to string together completions. In my opinion Clausen has better ball placement while Bradford is better at stringing completions together.

I would definitely agree that Bradford is better at stringing together completions. He is a rhythm passer and played in a system in the shot gun that really aided those rhythms. Not often you ever see him rattled... Both had very good ball placement but it was probably a bit tougher for Clausen dropping back behind an average Offensive Line.

JRTPlaya21
02-25-2010, 08:31 PM
What makes u think they will take him

Uhh Dan Snyder....

Complex
02-25-2010, 08:44 PM
Scott

You said above that rumors are that most teams have Bradford above Clausen. Did you hear any reasons as to why? Because to my eye Bradford has potential but I dont think he does anything better than Clausen does it. Really, where is it that Bradford is a superior prospect in any category?

Arm- Id say about even, bradford gets way underrated on thisClausen but not by much
Accuracy - Very close, maybe Bradford its arguable, though Clausen has great timing on throwsBradford is super accurate thats why he is rated so high
System - more questions for bradford
Leadership - who knows but i dont buy the bs about clausen he seems fine he was just a jack*** as a senior in high school/freshman year. seems fine nowI heard he wasn't to likeable by his teammates before this year
Play under pressure - Clausen blows him away, bradford never had much of a chance to prove it though
mechanics - Clausen

Clausen just has an it about him that says if you give him the ball late he'll win you the game. hes got too much confidence, skill, and moxy not to

last part of your statement: Yeah that's why his biggest win is hawaii, He had one good season with a Micheal Floyd and Golden Tate catching jump balls.

keylime_5
02-25-2010, 08:44 PM
i'm all for Bradford to St.Louis. That means the odds of Berry falling to Cleveland increases greatly.

NGSeiler
02-25-2010, 09:02 PM
I'm not thrilled about the idea of the Rams taking either of these QBs #1 overall, but I'm also not going to jump off a ledge if they pull the trigger. I understand the logic, but I personally don't think highly enough of Clausen and I think the questions about Bradford make it tough to pull the trigger on him as well. Just not my preference, but this team definitely needs a QB of the future, so we'll see. Ultimately we still have two months before we can see if Schefter is right. He's certainly put himself on the line, I guess.

DeathbyStat
02-25-2010, 09:37 PM
If he checks out medically I think there is a very good chance this will happen

wogitalia
02-25-2010, 10:08 PM
Biggest problem in this years draft is where the talent it.

For me the best players are two DTs, two MLBs, a safety and a WR and I find it really hard to justify taking any of them with the 1st pick. I don't like any of the OTs as top 5 picks. I don't personally like any of the QBs as top 20 picks. It is just so hard to say who should go first when you consider positions and the money that will be invested in that player. All of a sudden you get a pair of late first QBs(at best imo) being taken 1st because of need and because you are better to reach and draft a QB 1st and have him bust then to do the same with a OT or to draft a DT and have him bust. Just seems the public perception, even more so with a WR.

This is an awful draft to have a high pick and need a QB. It's not even like you can take the OL help and look to next and hope like a few teams did last year. This draft is loaded at a few spots and just empty at others, really difficult draft to judge or predict because of this.

I mean it may be the deepest and best draft ever at DT, it is outstanding at safety, there are some very good LBs, there are a lot of good DEs, though a distinct lack of "great" DE prospects, CB is the same as DE but if you need a QB, OT or RB it is really lacking. Basically the guys who have fallen to first round grades have the same flaws as those guys you can get in the mid rounds, this is a draft that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the best OL, QB and RB all came after the 3rd round.

V.I.P
02-25-2010, 10:13 PM
If they're really thinking of taking Bradford with the #1 pick why not just trade back to #3, and take him so we can get withe the #1 pick.

GB12
02-25-2010, 10:18 PM
****. I don't want Suh in Detroit.

ChiFan24
02-25-2010, 11:18 PM
No way in hell am I reading through this entire thread, so I'm sure this has already been proposed, but I agree St. Louis wants Bradford more than anyone, and I've thought this for a while. However, I think it's possible Tampa Bay would be willing to give the Bears second to leapfrog the Lions and take Suh, since IMO he's a better fit than McCoy. Seems pretty low-risk for St. Louis as well.

Me Likey Rookies
02-25-2010, 11:28 PM
To everyone proposing the Bucs trade up to #1 for Suh:

THEY DONT WANT TO PAY #1 MONEY, SO IT IS (probably) NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

hockey619
02-25-2010, 11:30 PM
I think people here either forgot how good Bradford was at Oklahoma or want to make Jimmy Clausen better in their mind. Either way, I'm a bit surprised at the general lack of knowledge and the amount of regurgitated bs that's floating around. To compare Jimmy's body of work to Bradford's would be laughable. Sam looks the part at 6'4 225, is the superior athlete, can make every throw, is a great leader with a great personality, and ultimately will appeal more to St. Louis at #1.



I didnt forget how good Bradford is, not at all.

And how is USC and Stanford Clausen's fault? Does that make the OK FL championship game a year ago Bradfords fault? Because you say Clausen wasnt good in those big games even though he kept his team in them (and quite a few others) while Bradford, while leading an offense that was lighting the world on fire, couldnt pull through in the biggest of big games. Granted, it wasnt his fault then either he played ok, not by his standards but certainly above average considering the D he was playing against.

Jimmy's mechanics are a little more traditional, which makes him a little safer is all. I personally have no issue with Bradford and I do like him as a prospect but I dont think he has Clausen's pedigree and his offense was a little more simplified than the ND one where Bradford had reads made for him on the sideline. Bradford is a good guy and very smart but Jimmy has a swagger to him thats just hard to bet against. I dont see much of a chance he fails because he seems to have too much pride to let it happen, I dont think bradford does either though i just think overall clausen brings more to the table.

Guy who said that Clausen had good weapons: Bradford had a preferential system, better running game, better oline, better running backs, and pretty good recievers in their own right. Clausen did throw up a lot of jump balls into single coverage. dont blame him for taking advantage of a team stupid enough to put those great recievers into coverage that plays much more to ND's favor. Dont look at Clausen's numbers, just watch him throw, hes a great QB.

Saints-Tigers
02-25-2010, 11:36 PM
I hear the people that say they need a QB over another position, but this isn't the year. I liked Dorsey way more than Matt Ryan,, and I liked Jason Smith more than Mark Sanchez, but the gap of Suh and even McCoy over Sam ******* Bradford is so gapingly huge it wouldn't even be in discussion to me as an owner. I'd rather lose this year(since it's such a foregone conclusion that they will lose if they don't draft a QB) and take what I believe will be a super dominant stud and get a QB next year.

Iguess if they think he will be a dominant QB, then go for it.

ThePudge
02-25-2010, 11:38 PM
Dont look at Clausen's numbers, just watch him throw, hes a great QB.

28 Touchdowns and 4 Interceptions doesn't do him justice?

HawkeyeFan
02-25-2010, 11:40 PM
No thanks, I much rather prefer Jimmy Clausen.

Don Vito
02-25-2010, 11:40 PM
They should take a QB in my opinion. Too bad they missed out on Locker, but people have been souring on Bulger for a while. Suh or McCoy are great talents that they could use, but they have been needing to take a QB for a while. I don't know if Bradford is the best choice over Clausen, but we shall see.

hockey619
02-25-2010, 11:41 PM
28 Touchdowns and 4 Interceptions doesn't do him justice?


Numbers can be skewed, in this case due to all the talent of his recievers and a couple poor D's they played. That and I just dont trust numbers, you learn a lot more watching pretty sure you and most others agree with that

Clarkw267
02-26-2010, 12:12 AM
If they're really thinking of taking Bradford with the #1 pick why not just trade back to #3, and take him so we can get withe the #1 pick.

No way in hell am I reading through this entire thread, so I'm sure this has already been proposed, but I agree St. Louis wants Bradford more than anyone, and I've thought this for a while. However, I think it's possible Tampa Bay would be willing to give the Bears second to leapfrog the Lions and take Suh, since IMO he's a better fit than McCoy. Seems pretty low-risk for St. Louis as well.

To everyone proposing the Bucs trade up to #1 for Suh:

THEY DONT WANT TO PAY #1 MONEY, SO IT IS (probably) NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

There are 3 reasons why the Rams WILL NOT trade down to #3 if they are targeting Bradford.

#1. The Bucs will know they are assured one of the 2 best prospects in the draft (Suh and McCoy) and will likely have them graded close enough to where they would be happy to get either, and not have to give up picks.

#2. Like the previous poster said.. no one wants to move up and take on that #1 contract , with a rookie pay scale likely coming into effect next year.

#3. The reason many are overlooking. The Redskins may covet Bradford as well. IF the Rams moved down to #3, and Bradford is the guy Shannahan wants, you better believe Detroit is getting a call at #2 from Washington. The Rams can't risk that if they believe Bradford is a franchise QB, and the guy they want.

BeerBaron
02-26-2010, 01:04 AM
Lol I hate that too, especially when it's a long post.

I tend to agree with you, but for me before I start throwing the bust word around it depends on how fast they plan on throwing him out there. It seems like nobody has patience enough to draft a veteran and sit a QB for 1-2 years. Who knows how good Rogers would have been starting as a rookie, but it could have only helped to sit and learn so long.

I don't think the Rams have enough at WR right now, nor is their offensive line complete since Bulger was still getting demolished. Playing in a dome should benefit Bradford alot, but they have got to do better then Donnie Avery and a bunch of nobodies. They still need alot of things in place for him to suceed, I wouldn't be trying to throw him out to the wolves just to make fans happy.

To the first bolded part, I really see that as an issue for a spread QB. Unless I'm forgetting someone obvious, all of the spread QBs I can think of have taken a few years to get rolling. Brees and Orton came out of Purdue's early style spread system. Brees took a few seasons, and the Chargers drafting a high first round QB in Rivers, to really show what he had. Orton was never more than a game manager in Chicago before being decent last year in Denver. Vince Young is also someone you could argue, but think about it....his "great" rookie year came from him just being a general playmaker...he wasn't that great of a passer or a pure QB. And I think he's just now starting to "Get it."

And if you look at the successful rookies of recent years.....Ryan, Stafford and Sanchez...all come from more pro style systems at BC, Georgia and USC. (The exception MIGHT be Flacco....I don't recall much about his college system but he also spent his rookie year as a game manager before starting to emerge a bit this year.)

So Bradford still scares me...a lot. While Clausen, out of a more pro-style system, doesn't as much. Questions with his maturity sure, but I'd still prefer him personally over Bradford.

To the 2nd bolded part, most teams who need a new franchise QB don't have a great surrounding cast. I actually like the Rams mostly young defense to develop under Spags. Carriker, Long, Laurinatis...all recent pretty high picks who could be decent. Plus Otogwe at FS, some decent other guys at other spots...their defense could put it together.

And on offense, Stephen Jackson plus a high draft pick, potential franchise LT in Jason Smith, and they're actually ahead of where I would have put say, the Lions when they drafted Stafford as a franchise QB.

K Train
02-26-2010, 01:11 AM
the lions and bucs are salivating at this idea.

if he goes #1...it just adds to my comparison of alex smith and sam bradford. they would be idiotic to do so imo, but thats what they have the first pick, because they suck from top to bottom.

i believe schefter most of the time but im being honest when i say i dont think bradford deserves a top 20 pick, he just doesnt have a big arm, he cant make all the throws and he showed that in the NC 2 years ago, he played on a team with the best OL, the best TE, a top defense, a good group of WRs and a good running game....he played in the spread, has there ever actually been a great QB that played in a spread offense in the pros? and hes got shoulder problems.

man this could get interesting. im saying he will draw alex smith comparisons in a few years

Saints-Tigers
02-26-2010, 01:21 AM
Brees played plenty in the spread(college and pro, lol)

K Train
02-26-2010, 01:25 AM
Brees played plenty in the spread(college and pro, lol)

well there it is lol, i didnt watch much brees in college

still though, 95% fail rate....maybe not fail, that might be harsh but its a tough transition to make.

HawkeyeFan
02-26-2010, 01:49 AM
Brees played plenty in the spread(college and pro, lol)
Drew Brees got right back into the Spread like you said in the NFL. Jimmy Clausen is a WCO, and that's what the Rams need.

ThePudge
02-26-2010, 01:55 AM
Drew Brees got right back into the Spread like you said in the NFL. Jimmy Clausen is a WCO, and that's what the Rams need.

And Sam Bradford has a skill-set perfectly tailored for that offense also, as well as strong pocket presence and the ability to see the field. I don't know that the Rams can go Clausen over Bradford at #1... I have the two graded closely as prospects, but Sam seems to be more what the Rams will target with the 1st Overall Pick.

umphrey
02-26-2010, 03:05 AM
Makes sense, I think Bradford is a pretty weak grab at #1 though

Abaddon
02-26-2010, 05:00 AM
"The Golden Rule" almost always wins.

50/50 is "almost always"? :confused:

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
02-26-2010, 08:22 AM
If St Louie avoids a QB this year and ends up in the top 3-5 again next year are Jake Locker or Ryan Mallet potential better choices?

bitonti
02-26-2010, 08:45 AM
so let me get this straight

he's not throwing at the combine

he hasn't played a football game in 6 months

he's done nothing to raise his stock at all

...and now he's going #1

over two of the best defensive tackle prospects for a decade.


ok whatever.

Morton
02-26-2010, 08:48 AM
so let me get this straight

he's not throwing at the combine

he hasn't played a football game in 6 months

he's done nothing to raise his stock at all

...and now he's going #1

over two of the best defensive tackle prospects for a decade.


ok whatever.

Don't you know that you can't win in the NFL anymore without a franchise quarterback?

No matter how good a defensive tackle is, he's not going to win you a Super Bowl unless you already have a franchise quarterback.

bitonti
02-26-2010, 08:56 AM
Don't you know that you can't win in the NFL anymore without a franchise quarterback?

No matter how good a defensive tackle is, he's not going to win you a Super Bowl unless you already have a franchise quarterback.

this logic is flawed... the rams need way more than a Qb. their defense still stinks.

Iamcanadian
02-26-2010, 09:01 AM
I don't think it is set in stone that the Rams take Bradford #1 overall but I think they are praying that Bradford shows he deserves to be taken there when he works out.
QB is definitely their #1 need and Clausen isn't in Bradford's class as a top 5 potential QB, so it is Bradford or wait another year and pray they get a shot again at a top QB.
The team needs Bradford desperately as it will make a major impact on ticket sales as well as merchandise revenue, otherwise the Rams could be looking at a half filled stadium.

Morton
02-26-2010, 09:03 AM
this logic is flawed... the rams need way more than a Qb. their defense still stinks.

There defense may stink but... it's easier to fix a defense than to get, and develop a reliable franchise quarterback.

Imagine if they pass on a franchise qb yet again. That's another wasted year in which they start some scrub like Keith Null. Another year they could have spent developing the future of their franchise. No matter how good a DT will be for them next year, it will do nothing to address the most important position on their team: the quarterback.

With a fully-developed franchise quarterback, you can win games for more than a decade. You can't say the same for a DT. They just don't have the same importance or impact on the game. And again, a fully-developed franchise qb is very hard to get and keep. And do you think Indianapolis would trade Peyton Manning for Vince Wilfork? Do you think Belichick would trade away Tom Brady for, hell, even Reggie White in his prime? Nope.

STsACE
02-26-2010, 09:15 AM
Sam Bradford is Tim Couch btw

Couch did fine. He was mutilated by opposing defenses while he was in the league.

bitonti
02-26-2010, 09:19 AM
There defense may stink but... it's easier to fix a defense than to get, and develop a reliable franchise quarterback.

Imagine if they pass on a franchise qb yet again. That's another wasted year in which they start some scrub like Keith Null. Another year they could have spent developing the future of their franchise. No matter how good a DT will be for them next year, it will do nothing to address the most important position on their team: the quarterback.

With a fully-developed franchise quarterback, you can win games for more than a decade. You can't say the same for a DT. They just don't have the same importance or impact on the game. And again, a fully-developed franchise qb is very hard to get and keep. And do you think Indianapolis would trade Peyton Manning for Vince Wilfork? Do you think Belichick would trade away Tom Brady for, hell, even Reggie White in his prime? Nope.

they are years away on offense and years away on defense. the Rams drafting Sam Bradford doesn't make them all that much better in 2010.

SUH and MCCOY are flat out better, less risky prospects.

a DT that has HOF possibility is better use of the pick than a decent QB prospect with injury concerns.

I dont care how much more important the QB position is... I dont care what Dr. James Andrews says... he doesn't know the future... if the Rams take Sam Bradford and he ends up on the Chad Pennington career path of shoulder surgeries that's a bad pick.

BeerBaron
02-26-2010, 09:26 AM
Brees played plenty in the spread(college and pro, lol)

Did you read in my post where I did mention Brees and how it took him a few years to get acclimated still?

And where do you get that he played in a spread in the pros? He came into San Diego when they were power running LT behind Fred McCrary and then Lorenzo Neal and throwing to a guy like David Boston.....Playing ******* Marty-ball for most of his time there too. Wtf.

Did him winning a Superbowl make everyone conveniently forget about the years in San Diego where he was bad enough for them land the #1 overall pick and end up taking a QB drafted at #4 overall? Remember that?

No spread QB, to my knowledge, has made even a reasonably quick transition to the pros and only Brees has ended up great, and that was after quite a few years of struggling, then moving to a new team that better matched his skills.

And this whole "spread in the pros" thing.....where is everyone pulling that out of their ass? A few drafts ago, I mocked Colt Brennan to the Patriots based on them running the closest offense to what he ran at Hawaii and got **** on all over for thinking that. I thought what the Pats ran was more spread like, but apparently not. Just because a team throws the ball a LOT, does not mean they run the spread...what I was told is that the routes and reads the Pats call for are still more pro-like than anything in a college spread.

The only other example I can think of is when the Chiefs, out of necessity, were said to be running more of a spread offense to help out Tyler Thigpen. And even then, how many of us actually saw a Chiefs game? Before they played the Steelers this year I'm not sure I had seen a Chiefs game since Dick Vermeil was the coach and Trent Green the QB.....so I can't even say that I saw first hand what they were doing.

Long story short, a spread QB has never acclimated to the NFL within 3 seasons and the only one who has turned out great has been Brees after several years of struggles and then going to a new team after just 1.5 decent years to end his San Diego tenure.

Morton
02-26-2010, 09:35 AM
they are years away on offense and years away on defense. the Rams drafting Sam Bradford doesn't make them all that much better in 2010.

SUH and MCCOY are flat out better, less risky prospects.

a DT that has HOF possibility is better use of the pick than a decent QB prospect with injury concerns.

I dont care how much more important the QB position is... I dont care what Dr. James Andrews says... he doesn't know the future... if the Rams take Sam Bradford and he ends up on the Chad Pennington career path of shoulder surgeries that's a bad pick.

That doesn't change the fact that:

*If* Bradford checks out physically, it is better to take a risk on a potential franchise quarterback than a sure-fire defensive tackle. Sure, if Bradford's shoulder is clearly busted, it's a mistake to draft him in the first round at all, let alone #1. But if he is medically cleared, the Rams *must* take him at #1.

You are underestimating the importance of the quarterback position. Seriously, NOBODY wins in the NFL anymore without a franchise quarterback, and franchise quarterbacks take years to develop, and are extremely rare in the draft and in free agency.

bitonti
02-26-2010, 09:44 AM
That doesn't change the fact that:

*If* Bradford checks out physically, it is better to take a risk on a potential franchise quarterback than a sure-fire defensive tackle. Sure, if Bradford's shoulder is clearly busted, it's a mistake to draft him in the first round at all, let alone #1. But if he is medically cleared, the Rams *must* take him at #1.

You are underestimating the importance of the quarterback position. Seriously, NOBODY wins in the NFL anymore without a franchise quarterback, and franchise quarterbacks take years to develop, and are extremely rare in the draft and in free agency.


I understand the importance of QB. But they aren't installing a bionic shoulder on Sam Bradford. He's gonna get repaired and that hurts his value. He's not going to be able to prove he's durable before the draft. There are no football games being played before April.

the doctors don't know crap about the future. James Andrews did Chad Pennington's surgeries too. They can't wave a magic wand and declare him healthy. The doctors cleared Dewayne Robertson despite a degenerative knee condition. A player can look great in pro day workouts and still be an injury prone player.

Put it another way If I'm picking QB #1 overall I'd prefer that player not suffer a season ending injury to his throwing arm. Call me a traditionalist.

GoRavens
02-26-2010, 09:46 AM
I don't agree with this move at all.
I think Clausen would be a better selection, but whatever.
I don't care what the Rams do

bitonti
02-26-2010, 09:54 AM
no matter how good Sam Bradford looks this spring, that doesn't change that this happened:


http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c117812/media_center/images/rendered/blog/wysiwyg/1sb91.jpg

SRogers92
02-26-2010, 10:05 AM
SUH and MCCOY are flat out better, less risky prospects.


Two things I love about these comments:

1) Risky ... all prospects are risky ... when you're drafting #1 overall, you throw all caution to the wind and grab the guy you think can change your franchise around ... The Lions went for the "risky" pick in Matt Stafford over Jason Smith or the supposed "safe" pick in Aaron Curry ... How did that turn out? Stafford struggled a bit, but -- looked to be a franchise QB in a couple of years ...

Fact is -- when you stink -- you take risks ...

2) Who are you to say who's the "FAR BETTER" prospects? Lol -- what team pays you to scout for a living? From what I've been hearing from most pundits and from websites quoting NFL personnel ... Bradford is rated right around the top 3 and as the better QB prospect ... But -- since YOU, almighty, say he's not in the league of McCoy or Suh ... I guess it has been decided.



The Rams' staff knows more then all of you -- and me -- if they grade Bradford out that well(which I agree, he is that good) then they need to get him ...

bitonti
02-26-2010, 10:10 AM
Lol -- what team pays you to scout for a living?

there isn't a pro scout in America that grades out Bradford higher than Suh or McCoy. only a fan, media member or possibly cooky team owner would make that determination. The scouts know that a healthy player at any position is better than an injured QB. No matter what Bradford does this spring he still had a season ending injury to his throwing arm, and surgery to repair it. That doesn't change.

It should be clear that Suh is a once in a decade prospect, McCoy probably is in that same area. There are no DT that record 21 career sacks in college. It flat out doesn't happen. Suh is a Mean Joe Greene, Reggie White type of prospect. Yes, he's that good... and McCoy might be better or at least similar.

So basically we are talking about passing on all-pro DT to get what exactly? a possible franchise QB? it's a risky play.

People talk about Brees... well here's a question what happens if Bradford gets hurt again? then he's had 2 major arm surgeries... and it will effect his career.

bored of education
02-26-2010, 10:12 AM
If St Louie avoids a QB this year and ends up in the top 3-5 again next year are Jake Locker or Ryan Mallet potential better choices?

You cannot draft like that or you will not last in the NFL. You cannot go into this draft saying "lets get the number 1-3 guy, where ever you have McCoy or Suh depending on value/need/financial issues..because next year if we suck again which would happen with another DT that (should not bust, right?) we can still get the number 1 or 2 overall pick and pick Mallet or Locker"

You just cannot do that.

bored of education
02-26-2010, 10:17 AM
this logic is flawed... the rams need way more than a Qb. their defense still stinks.

They have 2 first rounders already on the d-line and supposedly have some genius guy in Spags who does wonders for D line's and still picking 1st. The defense sucks but the player to put them in a position for more success now and the next 10 years is a QB..regardless fo where YOU think they should go in the draft. you are posting here for a reason.

Drafting Suh=3-13 next year, 4-12, 6-10 their after. Really good for that organization. A quarterback, whoever that quarterback is, would be the player to bring that team out of the doldrums. Give Steven Jackson a QB that can throw to any WR will put more stars in line than adding another DT to a defense that was not good to begin with.

The wya I see it, the Rams D will suck with McCoy or Suh for the next 5 years. The offenses has a top 3 RB, some bleh options at WR, a bleh line, give them a Qb that could lead to more wins now and in the future for them.

jth1331
02-26-2010, 10:18 AM
I love people already calling Suh and McCoy as HoF DT's.
Every player is risky, and you never know. LaVar Arrington was supposed to be the best LB EVER or some crap like that. He never lived up to that, not even close.
You need to look at best available, and best for your team.
I think St. Louis needs a QB more than they do taking Suh or McCoy, and Bradford is a great prospect.

bitonti
02-26-2010, 10:25 AM
Drafting Suh=3-13 next year, 4-12, 6-10 their after. Really good for that organization. A quarterback, whoever that quarterback is, would be the player to bring that team out of the doldrums.

this seems like wishful thinking. There are many scenarios where STL takes Bradford #1 and they still stink.

Bradford would have an uncertain OL, no WR targets to speak of, etc. Basically just Steven Jackson. He could get hurt again. He could not adjust to the pro game right away.


Hey if the Rams go this way that's good news for every other team in the draft. But it's a little riskier than they usually pick... this is a team that took the "safe" pick for the last 3 years. This seems more like a media theory than what the teams are actually thinking.

Not to mention the Rams dont officially have a new owner yet. If Dan Snyder owned the rams I could see this happening... it would take a strong and involved ownership to take a lower rated QB over a higher rated DT. Again it's possible but unlikely until the new ownership gets approved and confirms that's what he wants. If there's no ownership they take Suh cause its the chalk pick.

bitonti
02-26-2010, 10:26 AM
Every player is risky, and you never know. LaVar Arrington was supposed to be the best LB EVER or some crap like that. He never lived up to that, not even close.

Arrington was a 3x pro bowler... that's a pretty good use of a draft pick... considering how many of these guys are flat out busts.

yourfavestoner
02-26-2010, 10:26 AM
Couch did fine. He was mutilated by opposing defenses while he was in the league.

Couch did NOT do fine. He's co-headliner in the "how the **** were they first overall picks again?" group with David Carr.

bored of education
02-26-2010, 10:28 AM
I love people already calling Suh and McCoy as HoF DT's.
Every player is risky, and you never know. LaVar Arrington was supposed to be the best LB EVER or some crap like that. He never lived up to that, not even close.
You need to look at best available, and best for your team.
I think St. Louis needs a QB more than they do taking Suh or McCoy, and Bradford is a great prospect.

Yea, crown them.

I have both McCoy and Suh rated higher than Bradford, but that means nothing. I understand the logic behind grabbing Bradford. The idea of the draft is not to accumulate the best players, highest rated on your board. You are drafting to put your team in the best possible position to win now and in the future at times that means drafting number 1 on your draft board without looking at need, financial elements and fit. I have Dez Bryant rated higher than Bradford, should they pick Dez Bryant?

bored of education
02-26-2010, 10:34 AM
this seems like wishful thinking. There are many scenarios where STL takes Bradford #1 and they still stink.

Wishful yes, but look at teams that make the playoffs, more times than not they have a good Qb and not an elite DT. They could suck in the ufutre but it will set them up and put them in position to have success
Bradford would have an uncertain OL, no WR targets to speak of, etc. Basically just Steven Jackson. He could get hurt again. He could not adjust to the pro game right away.
thats the risk you take, its the risk you take that, hey SUH could bust as well

Hey if the Rams go this way that's good news for every other team in the draft. But it's a little riskier than they usually pick... this is a team that took the "safe" pick for the last 3 years. This seems more like a media theory than what the teams are actually thinking.

[b]Suh might be safer but look how the safe picks have done for them.

Not to mention the Rams dont officially have a new owner yet. If Dan Snyder owned the rams I could see this happening... it would take a strong and involved ownership to take a lower rated QB over a higher rated DT. Again it's possible but unlikely until the new ownership gets approved and confirms that's what he wants. If there's no ownership they take Suh cause its the chalk pick.

Just some responses in bold, Bitonti. I understand that they should pick Suh, but I can take on both sides. I will say what is true for all players regardless of place in the draft: put the person in the right situation they will succeed..if they want to succeed. Is Bradford all world Qb hell no. But right now ad for the future he is better for a team that is dog ****. Grabbing a guy who may project to be a better NFL player well good they can have a top 10-15 defense and have no offense ever. i am just using both sides here, because I dont think its a lock that Suh or McCoy should be the Rams pick

bitonti
02-26-2010, 10:46 AM
we talk about risk... Suh is probably 80% to 90% not going to bust. Bradford is closer to 50%... due to his injury, spread offense and just the success rate of QB's being lower.

Like i said a Dan snyder, jerry Jones or Al Davis type of owner ignores that risk and does what he wants... the Rams dont have that type of ownership, at least not yet. They are a team in transition. If Adam Schefter owned the Rams we know what happens. Right now the league is in the process of approving the new Rams ownership, and that takes months.

Taking a franchise QB without an owner is like painting a house all sorts of different colors and putting it on the market. They keep inside walls of houses white so that prospective buyers can imagine what they want. Franchise QB is a Franchise owner decision, these guys delaney are just minding the store until the new boss shows up.

FUNBUNCHER
02-26-2010, 10:49 AM
Arrington was a 3x pro bowler... that's a pretty good use of a draft pick... considering how many of these guys are flat out busts.
Naw, technically LA was a little 'bust'-y, considering he was the #2 player taken that year and the Skins could have drafted Urlacher, Keith Bulluck or Julian Peterson, LBs who had infinitely more successful careers than LA.:(

bored of education
02-26-2010, 10:53 AM
we talk about risk... Suh is probably 80% to 90% not going to bust. Bradford is closer to 50%... due to his injury, spread offense and just the success rate of QB's being lower.

Like i said a Dan snyder, jerry Jones or Al Davis type of owner ignores that risk and does what he wants... the Rams dont have that type of ownership, at least not yet. They are a team in transition. If Adam Schefter owned the Rams we know what happens. Right now the league is in the process of approving the new Rams ownership, and that takes months.

Taking a franchise QB without an owner is like painting a house all sorts of different colors and putting it on the market. They keep inside walls of houses white so that prospective buyers can imagine what they want. Franchise QB is a Franchise owner decision, these guys delaney are just minding the store until the new boss shows up.
I understand completely, everything you said. I agree with it. I just think the Canton 'bust' for Suh should not be made just yet and the 'bust' projection for Bradford should not be made just yet.

I may not agree with the Rams taking Bradford, but instead of analzying the risks of taking someone I like to analyze on a realistic level what happens if this guy doesn't bust, he pans out.
I work with stocks and mutual funds and we never make a purchase or a move and take a different investment because of our fear of the stock/investment that we think will be the best for our overall goals will bust or tank. You have to keep in mind what that the possibility is always there though.

BeerBaron
02-26-2010, 10:56 AM
Naw, technically LA was a little 'bust'-y, considering he was the #2 player taken that year and the Skins could have drafted Urlacher, Keith Bulluck or Julian Peterson, LBs who had infinitely more successful careers than LA.:(

Hell of a linebacker year that was...

FlyingElvis
02-26-2010, 10:58 AM
Shefter definitely has the credibility, though this really isn't a big surprise.

Defensive Linemen sell tickets? Hm... I was always under the impression from a business standpoint a Quarterback that touches the ball every play on offense would sell a bit more. Luckily you provided sound reasoning and used plenty of logic when analyzing Bradford's future and St. Louis' situation.
What, you don't think the Rams will sell out 8 games for another season at 10.9 points per game?

Schefter also says the Chargers will send the Rams #28 for Steven Jackson.

Damn . . . perhaps they'd prefer #22 instead?

Morton
02-26-2010, 11:00 AM
we talk about risk... Suh is probably 80% to 90% not going to bust. Bradford is closer to 50%... due to his injury, spread offense and just the success rate of QB's being lower.


Here's the thing though. If you're the owner of an NFL franchise, if you're smart, you'll realize that taking a 50% risk on a franchise quarterback is smarter than taking a 10% risk on a defensive tackle.

Compare it to dating. Would you rather go your whole life with a steady, loyal but plain girlfriend, and not take a risk, or go out there and try to get a really hot, interesting girl, knowing that there is a chance you will get shot down?

If you never try to get the hot girl, you'll never know what you could have had. If you stick with the plain girl, you'll at least have her, but you could have had so much more if you had just taken a risk.

Sure, you can probably have a 4-5 time Pro Bowl defensive tackle for the next few years, BUT there is also the chance (not that small,honestly) that you could have had a Pro Bowl quarterback for the next decade. What would you rather have, if both panned out? In this day and age, I'd rather have me Aaron Rodgers rather than Vince Wilfork, or Peyton Manning rather than Warren Sapp.

BeerBaron
02-26-2010, 11:01 AM
Damn . . . perhaps they'd prefer #22 instead?

Doesn't look like Jackson is going anywhere anytime soon:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/26/devaney-we-wont-be-poop-canning-jackson/

bitonti
02-26-2010, 11:10 AM
Here's the thing though. If you're the owner of an NFL franchise, if you're smart, you'll realize that taking a 50% risk on a franchise quarterback is smarter than taking a 10% risk on a defensive tackle.


i understand the logic but I question who at the Rams organization is going to employ this logic? Look at their last few drafts all they do is minimize risk. We can sit here and say thats no way to win, but there's no one in charge over there to tell them otherwise.

yes we all want Payton manning over Warren Sapp. But we'd also want Warren Sapp over Ryan Leaf. Who has the stones to make that call over at 1 Rams Way or whatever they call their headquarters? right now no body.

FlyingElvis
02-26-2010, 11:19 AM
Doesn't look like Jackson is going anywhere anytime soon:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/26/devaney-we-wont-be-poop-canning-jackson/

I wasn't serious.

Well, I would give up #22 in a heartbeat, but I believe every word of the Rams "We won't trade our best player" mantra. They've been saying it all along, starting last year around the deadline.

Thanks, though.

NGSeiler
02-26-2010, 12:34 PM
Rams GM Billy Devaney's reaction to Schefter's "guarantee"...

That took a lot of pressure off of us right away because when Dr. Schefter cleared him medically, we feel really good about the health status of Sam Bradford now with Dr. Schefter giving him a clean bill of health and guaranteeing our pick so we are on to the second round right now.

http://www.stlouisrams.com/blog/

ThePudge
02-26-2010, 12:39 PM
Rams GM Billy Devaney's reaction to Schefter's "guarantee"...



http://www.stlouisrams.com/blog/

Sarcastic and funny, but I'm not surprised how the Rams GM handled this. St. Louis isn't going to lure anyone up #1 Overall for Sam Bradford, but this has the look of a smokescreen to me with the team attempting to lure trade offers from Tampa Bay (and maybe others). They'd be foolish to ever come out and say that Bradford's their guy.

NGSeiler
02-26-2010, 12:47 PM
Sarcastic and funny, but I'm not surprised how the Rams GM handled this. St. Louis isn't going to lure anyone up #1 Overall for Sam Bradford, but this has the look of a smokescreen to me with the team attempting to lure trade offers from Tampa Bay (and maybe others). They'd be foolish to ever come out and say that Bradford's their guy.

Agreed, because it's more likely that no one is "their guy" at this stage of the process. But it was a pretty comical way to respond to Schefter's guarantee, nonetheless.

FlyingElvis
02-26-2010, 12:48 PM
Exactly. The Rams FO is probably very happy with Dr. Schefter right now. They have one of the more reliable names in NFL coverage reporting that they want Bradford. Let the trade talks begin for any team that wants to get ahead of Detroit & TBay to grab their stud DT.

hybridremix
02-26-2010, 01:14 PM
People seem to be forgetting that before Bradford announced his return to Oklahoma, Bradford and Stafford were 1 and 1A for most draft analysts. The only difference between Bradford '09 and Bradford '10 is the shoulder injury. If his shoulder is perfectly healthy, and Doctor "Legend" Andrews gives a high recommendation, then Bradford is right back to being the #1 player simply because of his position.

QBs who return tend to lose draft status [see: Leinart] because more time in college gives scouts more tape to pick apart. It doesn't mean the player is worse, just that all the hype built up going into the previous draft can settle while scouts build up the hype for the next young gun. Uniquely, Bradford doesn't face that problem. He got hurt and barely played, so all the tape scouts have is back from when he wowed them a year ago. If his shoulder passes with flying colors and he looks good throwing in late March, and add to it the fact that he bulked up about 15 pounds during his recovery [measured 6-4, 236 at the Combine today] to bulk up and take more of a beating, and you have the exact same prospect from last year without any of the negatives that concerned scouts at the time. How does going #1 sound anything other than logical?

Mayock made the best point, IMO, about this whole debate: The Rams' front office hasn't been around long, but between Devaney and the previous administration they have passed on Mark Sanchez, Matt Ryan, Brady Quinn [I lol'd too], and Aaron Rodgers. The QB situation has been bad for that long with nothing done in the draft to address it. Drafting Bradford isn't likely to translate into more wins this year, but neither is drafting Suh or McCoy. Bradford, however, has the ability to gain wins as he progresses, which is not the case with the other two. The fans and media will revolt if they Bradford goes to Washington or Seattle, or something, and has a solid rookie year. It will have been the 4th year in a row that they passed on a QB of the future. A lot of you guys are talking about risks. Can they really afford to take *that* risk?

I'll add to that how much of a stud RB they have in Jackson. I mean, he basically singled-handedly beat my Lions this past year. That man will carry the weight of the offense. Bradford won't have a lot of pressure to perform, only to learn and get better. Grab a big-bodied receiver [big possession type or a good TE] in a later round and instantly Bradford has every safety net you want for a rookie QB. It would be very similar to Sanchez, except with a less talented defense.

Clarkw267
02-26-2010, 01:31 PM
People seem to be forgetting that before Bradford announced his return to Oklahoma, Bradford and Stafford were 1 and 1A for most draft analysts. The only difference between Bradford '09 and Bradford '10 is the shoulder injury. If his shoulder is perfectly healthy, and Doctor "Legend" Andrews gives a high recommendation, then Bradford is right back to being the #1 player simply because of his position.

QBs who return tend to lose draft status [see: Leinart] because more time in college gives scouts more tape to pick apart. It doesn't mean the player is worse, just that all the hype built up going into the previous draft can settle while scouts build up the hype for the next young gun. Uniquely, Bradford doesn't face that problem. He got hurt and barely played, so all the tape scouts have is back from when he wowed them a year ago. If his shoulder passes with flying colors and he looks good throwing in late March, and add to it the fact that he bulked up about 15 pounds during his recovery [measured 6-4, 236 at the Combine today] to bulk up and take more of a beating, and you have the exact same prospect from last year without any of the negatives that concerned scouts at the time. How does going #1 sound anything other than logical?

Mayock made the best point, IMO, about this whole debate: The Rams' front office hasn't been around long, but between Devaney and the previous administration they have passed on Mark Sanchez, Matt Ryan, Brady Quinn [I lol'd too], and Aaron Rodgers. The QB situation has been bad for that long with nothing done in the draft to address it. Drafting Bradford isn't likely to translate into more wins this year, but neither is drafting Suh or McCoy. Bradford, however, has the ability to gain wins as he progresses, which is not the case with the other two. The fans and media will revolt if they Bradford goes to Washington or Seattle, or something, and has a solid rookie year. It will have been the 4th year in a row that they passed on a QB of the future. A lot of you guys are talking about risks. Can they really afford to take *that* risk?

I'll add to that how much of a stud RB they have in Jackson. I mean, he basically singled-handedly beat my Lions this past year. That man will carry the weight of the offense. Bradford won't have a lot of pressure to perform, only to learn and get better. Grab a big-bodied receiver [big possession type or a good TE] in a later round and instantly Bradford has every safety net you want for a rookie QB. It would be very similar to Sanchez, except with a less talented defense.

Agree completely..

Another thing people need to take into consideration is that Devaney is/will be on the hot seat with another poor season. He's going to be drafting to remain employed. Drafting a young QB buys you a year or 2 as a GM.

killxswitch
02-26-2010, 01:31 PM
I guess I was wrong about the new owner moving the team in the right direction. Bradford at #1? Really?

bored of education
02-26-2010, 01:34 PM
i understand the logic but I question who at the Rams organization is going to employ this logic? Look at their last few drafts all they do is minimize risk. We can sit here and say thats no way to win, but there's no one in charge over there to tell them otherwise.

yes we all want Payton manning over Warren Sapp. But we'd also want Warren Sapp over Ryan Leaf. Who has the stones to make that call over at 1 Rams Way or whatever they call their headquarters? right now no body.
Hindsight. I wouldn't call Suh or McCoy Sapp just yet and I wouldn't call bradford Ryan Leaf or Manning.

ThePudge
02-26-2010, 01:34 PM
I guess I was wrong about the new owner moving the team in the right direction. Bradford at #1? Really?

Building a franchise on a Quarterback? Really?

killxswitch
02-26-2010, 01:38 PM
Building a franchise on a Quarterback? Really?

We'll see in 3 years, but I expect him to fail.

bored of education
02-26-2010, 01:42 PM
We'll see in 3 years, but I expect him to fail.

well I expect you to fail at life. so what you say really means nothing without a reason.

FlyingElvis
02-26-2010, 01:43 PM
I just don't understand the arguments against a QB at #1.

Stafford wasn't the best prospect last year but it was still a smart move by Detroit, and Detroit didn't have looming rumors about relocating.

If the Rams have a QB ranked highly enough then it makes sense to take him 1st overall.

killxswitch
02-26-2010, 01:53 PM
well I expect you to fail at life. so what you say really means nothing without a reason.

No reason to be a ***** about it. All the reasons have been stated a million times on this board. His weak arm (especially with his shoulder injury issues which is a huge question mark). The non-pro system he played in. The easy reads he was asked to make. I don't think he'll handle sophisticated NFL coverage schemes, I don't think he'll handle taking lots of snaps under center with an NFL-level pass rush coming at him, ESPECIALLY with the STL line blocking for him.

Meanwhile fans of Bradford will have a rebuttal for every problem a detractor has. So it boils down to seeing where he goes, and how he does.

Addict
02-26-2010, 01:55 PM
I just don't understand the arguments against a QB at #1.

Stafford wasn't the best prospect last year but it was still a smart move by Detroit, and Detroit didn't have looming rumors about relocating.

If the Rams have a QB ranked highly enough then it makes sense to take him 1st overall.

also this is a very deep DT class. Suh and McCoy might be all-world but there's guys with plenty of talent to be had top of the second.

bitonti
02-26-2010, 02:07 PM
Meanwhile fans of Bradford will have a rebuttal for every problem a detractor has. So it boils down to seeing where he goes, and how he does.

Ive been going back and forth with a guy who believes Clausen is not only the best Qb in the draft but will go to STL number one. No matter what evidence there is to the contrary he flat out won't admit any other possibility. It's like talking politics or religion people make these bonds with certain quarterbacks and there's no talking to them otherwise.

killxswitch
02-26-2010, 02:11 PM
Ive been going back and forth with a guy who believes Clausen is not only the best Qb in the draft but will go to STL number one. No matter what evidence there is to the contrary he flat out won't admit any other possibility. It's like talking politics or religion people make these bonds with certain quarterbacks and there's no talking to them otherwise.

I actually think Clausen is a better prospect and would be a better pick for STL but I'm not convinced either of them is a franchise player. If I were going to take a chance I would bet on Clausen. But yeah, I don't get the attachment some people develop to prospects. I guess if you went to that school it might make some sense.

bored of education
02-26-2010, 02:15 PM
i just know what I think and project means jack ****. Everyone can throw enough **** against the wall and hope something sticks. Sometimes it that thign you do't throw against the wall that you wish you dide though. I know why and why Stl should go with Bradford/Clausen or McCoy/Suh. I know all reasons, but I don't know which trigger they will pull. It doesnt matter what trigger I think they should pull.

NGSeiler
02-26-2010, 02:26 PM
Agree completely..

Another thing people need to take into consideration is that Devaney is/will be on the hot seat with another poor season. He's going to be drafting to remain employed. Drafting a young QB buys you a year or 2 as a GM.

If Devaney is basing his picks on his job security rather than what's best for the team, then the organization is probably already doomed. But I don't get the sense that he's approaching it like that.

Obviously Devaney's job is going to be evaluated by any choice he makes, but I think in choosing a quarterback, he'd essentially sink or swim with the success of that pick. If Bradford becomes a Top 10 passer in this league and helps the Rams return to contender status, Devaney will be heralded. If Bradford doesn't develop into that top flight QB or just slowly turns into the St. Louis version of David Carr, then Devaney will be sending out his résumé.

The concern that I think some Rams fans have, though, is that St. Louis doesn't appear to have enough talent in place to have the kind of success that other recent teams did when they took first round quarterbacks. And some would prefer to have a stronger team in place before bringing in that new face of the franchise. Because right now, it's tough to see a rookie quarterback having a lot of success on an offense that really only has a Pro Bowl running back going for them.

Babylon
02-26-2010, 02:27 PM
As a Seattle fan i love Bradford to the Rams for a couple of reasons.

FlyingElvis
02-26-2010, 03:00 PM
If Devaney is basing his picks on his job security rather than what's best for the team, then the organization is probably already doomed. But I don't get the sense that he's approaching it like that.
. . .
Because right now, it's tough to see a rookie quarterback having a lot of success on an offense that really only has a Pro Bowl running back going for them.

C'mon now. They have one of the best centers in football!

Clarkw267
02-26-2010, 07:46 PM
If Devaney is basing his picks on his job security rather than what's best for the team, then the organization is probably already doomed. But I don't get the sense that he's approaching it like that.

Obviously Devaney's job is going to be evaluated by any choice he makes, but I think in choosing a quarterback, he'd essentially sink or swim with the success of that pick. If Bradford becomes a Top 10 passer in this league and helps the Rams return to contender status, Devaney will be heralded. If Bradford doesn't develop into that top flight QB or just slowly turns into the St. Louis version of David Carr, then Devaney will be sending out his résumé.

The concern that I think some Rams fans have, though, is that St. Louis doesn't appear to have enough talent in place to have the kind of success that other recent teams did when they took first round quarterbacks. And some would prefer to have a stronger team in place before bringing in that new face of the franchise. Because right now, it's tough to see a rookie quarterback having a lot of success on an offense that really only has a Pro Bowl running back going for them.

It may not seem like he's basing his selections on job security, and he probably hasn't been, but with this selection especially, I think it's going to enter his mind. If he takes Suh and they go 3-13 and draft in the top 5 , he's probably gone. However, if he takes Bradford and they go the same 3-13, he will probably get a year or 2 to turn it around while Bradford develops.

Saints-Tigers
02-26-2010, 08:19 PM
I just don't understand the arguments against a QB at #1.

Stafford wasn't the best prospect last year but it was still a smart move by Detroit, and Detroit didn't have looming rumors about relocating.

If the Rams have a QB ranked highly enough then it makes sense to take him 1st overall.


I thought Stafford was absolutely an elite prospect, and one of the best regardless of position.

I thought he was the best prospect in the draft because of both his upside and floor. Either way, Aaron Curry, Jason Smith, etc aren't even sniffing Ndamukong Suh as prospects, and I think Bradford has a much lower ceiling and floor from Stafford, and he has injury concerns, spread concerns, etc.

I don't think it's comparable, if it were Matt Stafford against Suh, I wouldn't blame them for taking him, but he was a 20 year old QB that had a cannon of an arm, a 3 year captain and starter that operated a pro style offense in the SEC. He was a top notch QB prospect, and I just don't see that with Bradford, he's not a safe pick, and he's not a high upside guy either.

Bradford over Suh is nothing like taking Stafford over Aaron Curry.

I'm just curious what people think Bradford's ceiling is? Would you take someone like Matt Hasselbeck over Kevin Williams or Albert Haynesworth?

Hines
02-26-2010, 08:29 PM
I think Bradford is the best way to go. They can't keep shifting away from their major need and that's a franchise QB. They have three offensive line pieces, a All Pro RB, and a good WR in Avery to help him. They need more pieces to that offense, but he should develop fine.

DTs can come from anywhere, so I wouldn't be surprised if they do pass on a DT the first two rounds to get their QB and some more weapons for him.

LonghornsLegend
02-26-2010, 08:32 PM
Just think about how much further the Rams would be right now had they taken Matt Ryan over Chris Long. Now the Falcons are a threat for the playoffs every year and here the Rams are picking in the top 2 again.


Alot of the same arguments that were made for Long>Ryan are being made this year too, I think whatever QB they have rated the highest needs to be the pick, you can't keep going in circles and putting off QB.

Gmen1987
02-26-2010, 08:36 PM
Sam Bradford=Rob Johnson. Bradford has never played well when faced with a real defense.

I think the front offices from the Lions and Bucs (and other teams) are flooding St. Louis's front office to take a QB so they can get one of the defensive tackles to fall to them. If St. Louis takes Bradford, I could see Detroit then taking McCoy. McCoy is the better pass rusher of the two DT, and Detroit faces the 3 division rivals with Pro Bowl QBs.

P-L
02-26-2010, 08:42 PM
man this could get interesting. im saying he will draw alex smith comparisons in a few years
Sam Bradford made more NFL reads in any one game than Alex Smith made in his entire career at Utah. Oklahoma's spread offense is much closer to what New England ran in 2007 than it is to what guys like Urban Meyer and Mike Leach run. Bradford is about 10-15 lbs heavier than Smith was coming out, more accurate, and had better numbers against better competition. I really don't see the comparisons.

Saints-Tigers
02-26-2010, 08:51 PM
Just think about how much further the Rams would be right now had they taken Matt Ryan over Chris Long. Now the Falcons are a threat for the playoffs every year and here the Rams are picking in the top 2 again.


Alot of the same arguments that were made for Long>Ryan are being made this year too, I think whatever QB they have rated the highest needs to be the pick, you can't keep going in circles and putting off QB.

Again, these are poor examples. Chris Long wasn't looked at as a dominant impact player. He was part of that "big 6" or so players that were all rated near each other.

Also, I was low on Ryan, and still haven't totally come around on him like some have, but even he was a better prospect than Bradford, also without the injury and system concerns.

P-L
02-26-2010, 08:56 PM
Sam Bradford=Rob Johnson. Bradford has never played well when faced with a real defense.

72%, 387 yards, 5 TD, 2 INT against Texas (#20 ranked defense).

56%, 411 yards, 4 TD, 0 INT against TCU (#2 ranked defense).

76%, 395 yards, 5 TD, 2 INT against Cincinnati (#26 ranked defense).

Add in the Florida game in which he was good, but not great and this is what he did against the four top 30 defenses he faced in 2008.

67%, 1449 yards (362 ypg), 16 TD (4 per game), 6 INT (1.5 per game)

cfh128
02-26-2010, 09:01 PM
Just think about how much further the Rams would be right now had they taken Matt Ryan over Chris Long. Now the Falcons are a threat for the playoffs every year and here the Rams are picking in the top 2 again.


Alot of the same arguments that were made for Long>Ryan are being made this year too, I think whatever QB they have rated the highest needs to be the pick, you can't keep going in circles and putting off QB.

Its easy to say that now looking back. But at the time, Bulger was only one year removed from a pro bowl campaign so drafting a QB didn't seem so urgent.

Its not exactly the same thing if you don't think that Bradford is as high of a quality quarterback as Ryan. I don't think the issue here is that the Rams don't want a quarterback, its a matter of is it worth spending such a high pick on a quarterback if he isn't a franchise type player. Especially when you have prospects as highly touted as Suh and McCoy staring you in the face and DT is an area that could definitely be upgraded.

The question becomes, is Bradford a good enough player to justify picking over one of the DT's? And how big of a dropoff is the level of talent between him and one of the guys that will be available in later rounds?

singe_101
02-26-2010, 09:47 PM
This is like taking Cutler over Mario Williams.

Is Suh reasonably going to be as good or better than Kevin Williams? That's a better bet, or trading and getting another QB.

If they get a QB firing on all cylinders with Jackson, it's the 2006 team at 8-8. Oh wait, no Holt. Historically bad defense over the last three years.

This is another frying pan like expansion Houston or Cleveland. I disagree that they can't plan on having a Top 10 pick next year, #10 was 7-9 this year. If they pick up 4 wins, that's a lot, and 5-11. Plus we need more Null.

In some ways they're worse off than an expansion team, they scored 175 points and allowed 436, both last. That's like the computer on Madden.

NGSeiler
02-26-2010, 10:32 PM
It may not seem like he's basing his selections on job security, and he probably hasn't been, but with this selection especially, I think it's going to enter his mind. If he takes Suh and they go 3-13 and draft in the top 5 , he's probably gone. However, if he takes Bradford and they go the same 3-13, he will probably get a year or 2 to turn it around while Bradford develops.

I guess I just don't agree that this new owner is going to fire the GM after his first year owning the team, especially considering the team that Devaney inherited.

They have three offensive line pieces, a All Pro RB, and a good WR in Avery to help him. They need more pieces to that offense, but he should develop fine.

I think you're more optimistic about the Rams' offensive talent than most Rams fans would be. ;)

Seriously though, I don't think the lack of talent on this team can be overstated. There is nothing on offense besides Steven Jackson that forces a defense to give a second glance; none of these receivers were able to step into the void left by a declining Torry Holt, let alone become reliable targets. The Rams don't have the depth at RB, consistent enough blocking, or a solid enough defense to protect a young quarterback with a top running game like the Ravens or Jets. The OL did show some flashes, but generally was pretty inconsistent. They'll likely have three new starters in 2010 (including Smith's shift to LT), which could be a good or bad thing.

Just think about how much further the Rams would be right now had they taken Matt Ryan over Chris Long. Now the Falcons are a threat for the playoffs every year and here the Rams are picking in the top 2 again.

I'm sorry, but this seems like a very oversimplified analysis of the situation.

At the time of the 2008 draft, the Rams had a coach in Scott Linehan who was firmly on the hot seat (he'd go on to be fired after Week 4), and the ink wasn't even a year old on Bulger's six-year extension. When the new regime came in last year, they were forced to cut a lot of veterans in order to clear contracts off the books for the future. I think the Rams had something like $20-30 million in dead money against the cap in 2009.

This wouldn't have changed had they drafted Ryan; instead, he'd just have to suffer through it. And who knows how his first two years turn out if he's playing on a different team.

Saints-Tigers
02-26-2010, 10:38 PM
Steven Jackson is a man beast that didn't get his first TD till like late in the season. This team isn't ready to throw a young QB out there.

V.I.P
02-26-2010, 10:38 PM
I hope they take Bradford. That way we will be guranteed to get Suh, or McCoy at #3.

wordofi
02-26-2010, 10:43 PM
If the Rams take Bradford, this will benefit the Cardinals, Seahawks, and
49ers. Bradford isn't going to make much of a pro quarterback.

TACKLE
02-26-2010, 10:59 PM
Bradford coming in at 6'4 236. Should erase any questions people had about his thin frame.

Flyboy
02-26-2010, 11:25 PM
Am I the only one whom have just NEVER been impressed with Sam Bradford as a pro prospect? He just doesn't have "it" to me. And #1 overall? Oh vey.

asdf1223
02-26-2010, 11:33 PM
I'm just curious what people think Bradford's ceiling is? Would you take someone like Matt Hasselbeck over Kevin Williams or Albert Haynesworth?
As a seahwak fan I would. In 2007, Matt Hasselback had a 4000 yd season with his slot reciever Bobby Engram as his #1 Reciever. Branch was injured, Alexander was ineffective, and we had Marcus Pollard as our tight end. Sure we needed Kearney to have a DPOY season, but Hass took us to the playoffs by himself. Sam Bradford neednt become the next Manning. But if hes one of the Top 10 QBs in the next 5 years its still better than having the best DT in the league

Gmen1987
02-27-2010, 06:45 AM
Am I the only one whom have just NEVER been impressed with Sam Bradford as a pro prospect? He just doesn't have "it" to me. And #1 overall? Oh vey.

No you are not the only one. I see him as the next Rob Johnson. Looks like Tarzan, fragile as a china doll.

LonghornsLegend
02-27-2010, 11:23 AM
I don't think the issue here is that the Rams don't want a quarterback, its a matter of is it worth spending such a high pick on a quarterback if he isn't a franchise type player. Especially when you have prospects as highly touted as Suh and McCoy staring you in the face and DT is an area that could definitely be upgraded.



Again, I don't see what is different about this same argument then back at the time. Maybe QB wasn't an urgent need, but can anyone argue that had they taken Ryan and sat him on the bench a year or 2 instead of anyone else they wouldn't be much better? Yet they still want to pass on another QB this year and take another defensive lineman.



The question becomes, is Bradford a good enough player to justify picking over one of the DT's? And how big of a dropoff is the level of talent between him and one of the guys that will be available in later rounds?


Then next year when they have the #1 pick, and another DE comes out as a Mario Williams freak, I guess they'll have to pick him too when Locker and Mallett get torn apart and their weaknesses get exposed too. Maybe next year they pick 4th and miss those 2 guys, then what do they do? You'll be in this same situation constantly if you don't eventually just take a QB, yes there are bust but I think if you put talent around a guy and develop him properly he'll be fine, especially if your confident in how you graded him.





Again, these are poor examples. Chris Long wasn't looked at as a dominant impact player. He was part of that "big 6" or so players that were all rated near each other.

Also, I was low on Ryan, and still haven't totally come around on him like some have, but even he was a better prospect than Bradford, also without the injury and system concerns.



How was it a poor example? STL needed a QB that season also, but people saw Ryan as an inferior QB prospect who was nothing but average and Chris Long had an incredibly high floor to anchor their defense. Lots of people saw Long as a dominant player, had they not he wouldn't of been selected that high, but these were the thoughts of people at the time. Matt Ryan had a laundry list of things people didn't like as to why he would fail.


Some of the same arguments are being made now, Bradford is an inferior QB prospect, average, so they should take the D-lineman to turn their defense around. You may think Ryan was a better QB prospect, but alot of people feel Bradford is the better prospect outside of the injury concern if it all checks out to be ok. It's basically the same situation, passing up a franchise QB for another D lineman which they have been drafting and hasn't stopped them from picking in the top 2.

singe_101
02-27-2010, 12:06 PM
They should have just traded in 2008 to a team that was hot after Ryan or Dorsey, then pick up Flacco in the first like the Ravens.

This also reminds me of the Calvin Johnson pick, there are sunk costs on the defensive line and no true QB to "lead" the team, but if the best player is on the d line, pick him.

And pick a QB later. They really haven't even been trying besides Bulger. Boller? Keith Null? Was David Greene busy? And it's not like Bulger was Manning-esque and never hurt.

It's probably a negative for them that Bulger threw smoke in 2006 and looked very good, if he had bombed that year they would have had to do something by now... freaking 2010. Even the Texans have an LT.

Supporting Caste
02-27-2010, 12:45 PM
The logic of "needing" to take a QB first is just silly.

Just because the Falcons got lucky with Ryan and the Jets defense made everyone not notice how mediocre Sanchez was last year doesn't mean the Rams will get any better by drafting a quarterback who isn't worth a top 10 pick just so they can say they didn't pass on a quarterback.

But bad teams do stupid things, which would make it less than shocking if they took Bradford.

With that said, a lot can and will change from now until draft day. Just because they think something now doesn't mean they won't change their mind if, say, Bradford's shoulder doesn't test well and Clausen tests a ton better in drills.

ThePudge
02-27-2010, 01:17 PM
The logic of "needing" to take a QB first is just silly.

Just because the Falcons got lucky with Ryan and the Jets defense made everyone not notice how mediocre Sanchez was last year doesn't mean the Rams will get any better by drafting a quarterback who isn't worth a top 10 pick just so they can say they didn't pass on a quarterback.

But bad teams do stupid things, which would make it less than shocking if they took Bradford.

With that said, a lot can and will change from now until draft day. Just because they think something now doesn't mean they won't change their mind if, say, Bradford's shoulder doesn't test well and Clausen tests a ton better in drills.

Bradford took the rest of the season off exactly for this reason, so his shoulder would check out medically at the Combine. There's not going to be deep ligament problems, his shoulder not just going to be separated when they check it. It's time to use our heads and actually think of a reason his shoulder wouldn't check out now. He's probably been healthy enough to throw for a month or two. He'll be throwing half a month from now, perhaps longer (doing too much at the moment to look up the date). Without contact it's not just going to pop out again...

But hey the pros, man are they idiots... you could run the Rams and make them into a winning team by tomorrow with Clausen! Wait... you don't need a QB really, typically rebuilding teams would be better of going DL. For when building a franchise isn't a game of Madden, and I'm looking at the situation realistically, I'm thinking the team will more than likely target Sam Bradford... Good thing people are using all their personal opinions and not taking two seconds to actually put themselves in the Rams shoes

NGSeiler
02-27-2010, 02:47 PM
Again, I don't see what is different about this same argument then back at the time. Maybe QB wasn't an urgent need, but can anyone argue that had they taken Ryan and sat him on the bench a year or 2 instead of anyone else they wouldn't be much better? Yet they still want to pass on another QB this year and take another defensive lineman.

I'm fairly sure like a dozen responses ago, I pointed out a number of reasons as to why the Rams wouldn't be that much better right now had they taken Matt Ryan. The team was on the decline heading into the 2008 season with a head coach who would only last four games into the regular season and loads of contracts that the new regime would have to cut to clear the books. Drafting Ryan wouldn't have changed any of that.

How was it a poor example? STL needed a QB that season also

This is bordering on revisionist history. Marc Bulger was one year removed from a Pro Bowl season in 2006, and had signed a six-year extension not even a year before the 2008 draft (July of '07 to be exact). The Rams were not going to spend a top three pick on a QB after just signing their guy to a $60+ million deal a few months earlier. Suggesting they should have is ignoring the many factors that made it entirely unrealistic.

For when building a franchise isn't a game of Madden, and I'm looking at the situation realistically, I'm thinking the team will more than likely target Sam Bradford... Good thing people are using all their personal opinions and not taking two seconds to actually put themselves in the Rams shoes

So what would you say to those fans who put themselves in the Rams' shoes and conclude that they should take someone other than a QB? Or is that simply not possible?

Supporting Caste
02-27-2010, 05:56 PM
But hey the pros, man are they idiots... you could run the Rams and make them into a winning team by tomorrow with Clausen! Wait... you don't need a QB really, typically rebuilding teams would be better of going DL. For when building a franchise isn't a game of Madden, and I'm looking at the situation realistically, I'm thinking the team will more than likely target Sam Bradford... Good thing people are using all their personal opinions and not taking two seconds to actually put themselves in the Rams shoes

Right, because taking a QB high without the foundation they need to actually perform has a great track record: Houston (Carr), Detroit (Harrington), Chicago (McNown), Cincinnati (Smith), Cleveland (Couch, Quinn), San Francisco (Smith), derp derp derp etc.

Not to even mention the fact that Bradford isn't anywhere near the prospect that other QBs taken that high have been.

Halsey
02-27-2010, 06:24 PM
The Rams can keep building a supporting cast for the next century, but they won't compete until they get a starting quality QB. They've been selecting lineman year after year and haven't been competitive since.....the last time their QB play was decent.

bored of education
10-10-2010, 11:51 AM
http://johncarmichaels.typepad.com/carmichaels_position/WindowsLiveWriter/Eat%20Crow_thumb.jpg

armageddon
10-12-2010, 10:48 PM
Right, because taking a QB high without the foundation they need to actually perform has a great track record: Houston (Carr), Detroit (Harrington), Chicago (McNown), Cincinnati (Smith), Cleveland (Couch, Quinn), San Francisco (Smith), derp derp derp etc.

Not to even mention the fact that Bradford isn't anywhere near the prospect that other QBs taken that high have been.



LOL :oops: