PDA

View Full Version : If you were the Rams GM, what would you do?


Halsey
04-09-2010, 09:10 AM
I keep going back and forth on this question and wonder what others would do. I totally buy into the "Golden Rule of the NFL Draft" that Scott talks about a lot, but I still might take Suh or McCoy #1 and try to address the QB position another way. I might even consider taking Tebow at pick 33, because if nothing else I have 2 guys who will generate a lot of excitement and energy around the Rams.

killxswitch
04-09-2010, 09:13 AM
I would take Clausen or Suh with the 1st pick.

BaLLiN
04-09-2010, 09:20 AM
i would become a SWDC member, make a thread like this, and actually listen to some outside opinions.

JHL6719
04-09-2010, 09:21 AM
I would take Clausen or Suh with the 1st pick.



Ditto...

There's no way I would take a college QB from a gimmicky spread offense that didn't even play much football last season due to hurting his throwing shoulder TWICE with the #1 overall pick..... when will teams learn?

I would take Suh.....but if I was absolutely hell bent on taking a QB with the #1 overall pick.....give me the one from the pro style offense that's a gamer and has some fire in his belly EVERY time....

AntoinCD
04-09-2010, 09:31 AM
I would have tried like hell to get Donovan McNabb or another QB who can at least not be a liability now. Without getting him or another QB I would take the highest rated QB who IMO is Clausen. The Rams are doing the right thing in taking a QB but they are probably taking the wrong one

DeathbyStat
04-09-2010, 09:36 AM
I would draft Jimmy Clausen

griff2213
04-09-2010, 09:48 AM
CLAUSEN!!! Why would you take a quarterback with system and durability questions when you can take a quarterback who has neither and whose only supposed glaring question mark is his cocky attitude????? And why would you take a defensive tackle when Keith Null is your quarterback???? PLEASE TELL ME

AkiliSmith
04-09-2010, 09:57 AM
Clausen is a much safer pick

georgiafan
04-09-2010, 10:00 AM
I would do something other then take Bradford #1 which would prob be Suh

JFLO
04-09-2010, 10:03 AM
Try my hardest to trade out of the pick...then when that likely doesn't happen, then I'll take Jimmy Clausen.

Personally, I wouldn't touch Sam Bradford inside the Top 10.

On the actual Rams pick, they need a quarterback and I'm a believer in the Golden Rule, so Clausen is the pick in my eyes.

georgiafan
04-09-2010, 10:08 AM
I'm all about taking a QB when you need dont have one and the rams dont have anything close to that on the roster. I also wouldn't reach for a QB at #1 and If I'm the GM I dont have Bradford as the top 10 pick. Like jflo said I would try to trade out, but that isnt likely to happen. Im not gonna pick a QB just for the heck of it espically with the millions of dollers on the line.

K Train
04-09-2010, 10:08 AM
I would take Clausen or Suh with the 1st pick.

yeah that...

DeepThreat
04-09-2010, 10:10 AM
I would take Bradford. He has all the makings to be a franchise QB. One injury is the only thing that people don't like there.

yourfavestoner
04-09-2010, 10:15 AM
I'd flip a coin between Bradford and Clausen. I really like both of them, and I haven't been this confident about a quarterback's success in awhile.

AntoinCD
04-09-2010, 10:17 AM
I would take Bradford. He has all the makings to be a franchise QB. One injury is the only thing that people don't like there.

System, arm strength, the fact that he got hurt the last two times he got hit. It's more than just one injury concern

JFLO
04-09-2010, 10:17 AM
I would take Bradford. He has all the makings to be a franchise QB. One injury is the only thing that people don't like there.

Yea, Pro Scouts love quarterbacks who will have a deep learning curve from playing in a spread offense and quarterbacks who get injured once they finally start to feel pressure in the pocket...after two years.

Splat
04-09-2010, 10:26 AM
I would take Clausen.

Rosebud
04-09-2010, 10:27 AM
I'd take Suh just because he's a monster but if I had to go QB it would be Bradford, his arm strength is perfectly fine and the shoulder seems to have healed up. His intermediate to deep accuracy is just phenomenal so I won't blame anyone who sees the next Drew Brees or Peyton when they watch Bradford.

Grizzlegom
04-09-2010, 10:27 AM
I'd take Bradford and there honestly wouldn't even be a question/debate.

princefielder28
04-09-2010, 10:37 AM
I would take Bradford without a doubt in my mind

ThePudge
04-09-2010, 10:41 AM
Take Bradford and never look back. The Rams'll get the pick right, where it goes from there is up to Sam and his coaches.

jth1331
04-09-2010, 10:54 AM
System, arm strength, the fact that he got hurt the last two times he got hit. It's more than just one injury concern

Yea, Pro Scouts love quarterbacks who will have a deep learning curve from playing in a spread offense and quarterbacks who get injured once they finally start to feel pressure in the pocket...after two years.

Jesus effin christ, you guys make it sound like his arm is no better than Chad Pennington post surgery and he played in Hawaii/Florida's offense.
News flash, his arm strength is not a concern.
News flash, the system argument is absolute BS.
News flash, his arm held up more than okay at his Pro Day.
Freak injuries happen, and I can understand the concern on his shoulder, but he wouldn't be talked about this highly if he wasn't medically OK.

Seriously, people like to rip on Bradford for some unknown reason, just like people ripped Matt Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, etc.

MikeTheDudeV2
04-09-2010, 10:58 AM
I would take Sam Bradford. I just feel his potential is greater than Clausen's.

yourfavestoner
04-09-2010, 11:07 AM
Jesus effin christ, you guys make it sound like his arm is no better than Chad Pennington post surgery and he played in Hawaii/Florida's offense.
News flash, his arm strength is not a concern.
News flash, the system argument is absolute BS.
News flash, his arm held up more than okay at his Pro Day.
Freak injuries happen, and I can understand the concern on his shoulder, but he wouldn't be talked about this highly if he wasn't medically OK.

Seriously, people like to rip on Bradford for some unknown reason, just like people ripped Matt Ryan, Stafford, Sanchez, etc.

It's not that people rip them or don't like them. It's just that people on this board think that every prospect that doesn't grade out like John Elway shouldn't be a top five pick.

marshallb
04-09-2010, 11:08 AM
I would take Bradford, Clausen may be the safer pick at QB, but Bradford has a higher upside and the Rams have to take a shot, and swing for the fences.

Mr.Regular
04-09-2010, 11:11 AM
Id want to go Suh, but in the end I think Id have to pull the trigger on Clausen, who I think is the best QB in the draft.

JFLO
04-09-2010, 11:11 AM
It's not that people rip them or don't like them. It's just that people on this board think that every prospect that doesn't grade out like John Elway shouldn't be a top five pick.

In my eyes, Sam Bradford isn't even a Top 10 pick, so why would I take him with the #1 overall choice if Jimmy Clausen is still on the board?

You don't have to be John Elway to be the #1 pick, but you also can't be Ben Roethlisberger or Jason Campbell, guys who were picked outside the top ten.

I_C_DeadPeople
04-09-2010, 11:25 AM
These debates are always a catch 22. At the end of the day, if the Rams war room feels that Bradford is clearly better than Clausen (and/or McCoy for that matter) than pick him. If he is not, then draft Suh and then get maneuver up someway after that to get the QB you want.

If (big IF) i was liking Clausen as much or better than Bradford, I would take Suh then see who then takes Bradford. If Bradford falls then Clausen would as well. I am thinking to when SD passed on Vick by trading down and picking up LT and Brees.

There is the possibility that no QB on the Rams board is top 5 (think Alex Smith) then you have to take Suh and play the draft after that.

It always comes down to the TEAM'S draft board, not ours.

superfly69
04-09-2010, 11:31 AM
Take Eric Berry just to upset everyone, and screw up every mock draft that is out there.

HawkeyeFan
04-09-2010, 11:36 AM
I would draft Jimmy Clausen, easily.

Crickett
04-09-2010, 11:50 AM
In my eyes, Sam Bradford isn't even a Top 10 pick, so why would I take him with the #1 overall choice if Jimmy Clausen is still on the board?

You don't have to be John Elway to be the #1 pick, but you also can't be Ben Roethlisberger or Jason Campbell, guys who were picked outside the top ten.


Why not? If the Giants decided not to give up the king's random for Eli, it was expected that they were going to take Roethlisberger who was a possibility for as high as #2. The Giants selected Rivers specifically because San Diego wanted him.

Why can't you be Ben Roethlisberger? Or lets say someone who was taken out of the top twenty but was projected to possibly go #1........ Aaron Rodgers?

P-L
04-09-2010, 11:51 AM
Sam Bradford, without hesitation. The spread concerns are vastly overstated. Oklahoma's offense is nothing like June Jones' or Mike Leach's spread offense. Hell, it isn't really like Urban Meyer's either. NFL teams have been incorporating more elements of the spread in their offenses already, so I don't think the learning curve is going to be as big as Clausen's fans want to make it out to be. There will be an adjustment, but I swear some of you act like he ran the triple option offense. The lack of arm strength label also amuses me. There is no evidence of it. Oklahoma didn't run a deep vertical passing game, so people assume that Bradford doesn't have a strong arm just because he was never required to show it off.

Complex
04-09-2010, 11:57 AM
I would take Sam Bradford no question. I don't get why people compare Chad Pennington's arm with Sam Bradfords. Bradford has more arm strength than Chad, Mayock said his arm strength is similar to Matt Ryans .

DeathbyStat
04-09-2010, 12:09 PM
System, arm strength, the fact that he got hurt the last two times he got hit. It's more than just one injury concern

Thats what worries me the most, someone post an interview with a scout on here and the scout said the same thing, and went on to say that Big Ben gets hit like ten times a week

DeathbyStat
04-09-2010, 12:14 PM
The internet draft community and Mel Kiper seems to be behind Clausen

ESPN, the main stream public and Todd Mcshay like Bradford.

I wonder how most teams in the NFL see it?

Merlin
04-09-2010, 12:21 PM
Interesting, 57/59 and he said his fitness was only 75-85%, he also said he was a little tired, which isn't surprising all things considered, the two balls he/rec, missed, we're deep passes both to Robby Paris, one looked slightly over thrown, the second Paris stumbled, I'd rather see that then under thrown though.

A solid pro day.

He also said he was having PW's with the Rams and Redskins, so if I'm the Rams, I wait for the workout.

San Diego Chicken
04-09-2010, 12:23 PM
Oklahoma didn't run a deep vertical passing game, so people assume that Bradford doesn't have a strong arm just because he was never required to show it off.

Isn't that a concern though? When we're talking about a quarterback that is the top rated in the draft, wouldn't we all feel better knowing that he can make those NFL style throws, instead of saying "we think he can, but we're not 100% sure?"

Bradford is lauded for his accuracy, but we're not sure if he loses accuracy in that deeper window, because he was never required to make those throws.

Arm strength is overrated, but I wouldn't want a QB who is system limited either. If I'm drafting a guy #1 and handing him 40 million in guarantees, I damn well better be sure he can make those throws instead of merely assuming it. I think what you're saying goes both ways.

For example, Matt Ryan didn't have a fabulous arm, but the offense he ran his last year in college demonstrated that he could still complete those deep posts & deep outs on 3rd and 10. And I know that alot of people weren't sold on him either, but it helped his evaluation knowing he studied under an NFL coach who ran an NFL-style deep passing attack.

JFLO
04-09-2010, 12:27 PM
I think the arm strength facet of a quarterback's game is a bit overrated. Obviously you want someone to be able throw a 10-15 yard out on a rope, but I would rather have someone put that ball where it exactly needs to be than throw it over the receiver's head and result in an interception.

I look at arm strength as a part of a grade, but I don't put as much emphasis on that as accuracy, intangibles or vision on the field.

Plain and simple, I don't care about Bradford's arm strength.

I'm still a believer that someone should take a Pro-Style quarterback rather than a spread system quarterback. I don't care if it's similar to Urban Meyer's or not, it's a spread system. Bradford isn't dropping 3-5-7 steps while reading defenses. He's throwing 5-10 yard dink and dunks and occasionally a pass down the field. His stats are inflated (not that anyone is looking at them anyway ;) )

Then you throw in the fact that he isn't used to seeing pressure come his way. And then, when the Sooner's offensive line finally has some exploitations in it, he hits the turf a couple times and unfortunately, he hurts his shoulder, it happens.

But whose to say that he will be able to adjust as a quarterback in the NFL and be ready to take some hits and be able to improvise when the rush is hitting him. He's a smart kid, but I really don't think that the fact he has limited experience against the pass rush will help his case.

killxswitch
04-09-2010, 12:51 PM
Surprised at all the Clausen nominations. I thought Bradford would be most peoples' pick.

One thing appears certain, the Rams are picking a QB.

parcells
04-09-2010, 01:45 PM
I have come around on Bradford big time. I still am not 100% sold. If I were the Rams I would look at Bradford independent of the rest and simply ask if I really thought he had a legit shot to be a franchise QB and was worth the #1 pick, regardless of the presence of Suh and McCoy. If the answer is yes, I take Bradford. If not, I take Suh.

A good example of this is that I thought Alex Smith was not at all deserving of the #1 pick in 2005. I thought the 49ers should have gone elsewhere.

When you are picking #1 and need a franchise QB, it's a yes/no question when evaluating the QB. If you like him enough, you take him regardless of what else is out there.

In 2007 I hated JaMarcus Russell and Calvin Johnson was such a special prospect that I might have violated this rule.

BaLLiN
04-09-2010, 01:58 PM
ACTUALLY Id ASK SCOTT WRIGHT TO MAKE THE PICK FOR ME
;)

Addict
04-09-2010, 01:59 PM
if I were the Rams GM I'd quit my job and fap all day cuz I'm rich.

thetedginnshow
04-09-2010, 02:02 PM
I'd be sad that I was the Rams GM then take Joe McKnight #1 overall.

DeepThreat
04-09-2010, 02:10 PM
Oklahoma's offense is more similar to the Patriots' than anything. Sure it's a good offensive scheme for a quarterback, but a lot of NFL offenses are that way as well.

Furthermore, if a high school QB can adjust from a high school offense to a college offense, why can't a college QB adjust from a college offense to a pro offense? The system is very overrated IMO.

Bradford is going to have to learn to take snaps under center. Okay fine, but in many pro offenses most the snaps are from the shotgun anyway.

He doesn't have a rocket arm. Neither does Peyton Manning. It's far from Chad Pennington like.

He got hurt. So did Drew Brees. And his injury was a lot worst than Bradford's.

diabsoule
04-09-2010, 02:36 PM
Trade a 4th or 5th to the Redskins for Jason Campbell, draft Ndmakong Suh with the 1st, then Golden Tate or Arrellious Benn with the 2nd.

Iamcanadian
04-09-2010, 04:17 PM
The internet draft community and Mel Kiper seems to be behind Clausen

ESPN, the main stream public and Todd Mcshay like Bradford.

I wonder how most teams in the NFL see it?

NFL Network is 100% behind Bradford and they communicate daily with scouts and GM's. Teams love Bradford but many aren't sold on Clausen at all.

TheMorningZoo
04-09-2010, 04:18 PM
honestly it may sound dumb, but I would trade for Vick, draft Suh, and then focus on Offensive Playmaker's like Benn, Hernandez or other TE's, and maybe target LB early.

I figure Sam Bradford is the top QB in this class, but next year's class is loaded with top QB's (Locker, Mallet, Ponder, Devlin). Vick doesn't have too much tread for his age and could provide a spark in St. Louis. He would put butts in the seats, and who knows-maybe he pans out into something? Worst case he is a stop-gap for a year or two and then St. Louis can select a Franchise QB from a better crop next year.

Suh I don't even really need to explain. Best DT to come out in some time, Freak of nature, and Spag's is a Defensive Minded coach. Suh would also help alleviate pressure from Chris Long , who started to turn on the light bulb towards the second half of the season last year.

Then the Rams can focus on playmakers for whoever they opt to go with for QB. They would help Vick right now, and help the QB of the future whenever he comes in to take over.

I don't know what the tender is on Vick, but if it isn't too high it could possibly pay dividends for the Rams.

ThePudge
04-09-2010, 04:28 PM
The way I see it, if I had no knowledge of the Quarterbacks in this class and I saw them side by side, throwing, talking football, working out, there's no way that Bradford wouldn't be my first pick of the bunch.

All anyone can use to vault Clausen over Bradford is his college offense, the pro-style vs. spread system. If I have all the QBs in a room it's going to be Bradford physique that's going to intrigue me, it's going to be his velocity, his accuracy, his mechanics and when I get the chance to talk football with them I know Sam is one of the most intelligent & well-spoken QBs in recent memory. His confidence, poise, ability to read a defense, and leadership will draw comparison's to Peyton Manning at similar times in their career. The only reason Clausen has ANY followers that think he's a superior player is the college offense each played in and Bradford's shoulder, which is stronger than ever.

diabsoule
04-09-2010, 06:47 PM
My question is this: why do the Rams HAVE to take a QB? Bradford is not the best player in the draft and arguably not the best QB in the draft as can be see by the Clausen vs. Bradford debates even in this thread. Both quarterbacks have major positives but both have at least one major drawback. So, then why?

It is going to take more than one year for the Rams to become a contender. I think everyone can agree on that so why not trade for a veteran quarterback while building the talent around him? Shaun Hill, Jason Campbell, Trent Edwards, and the like should be available fairly cheaply. If that happens then take Suh. I know, I know, St. Louis has concentrated on their DL a lot but Suh is a rare talent and one of the most dominant college defensive tackles in the past decade. He will immediately help any team that drafts him.

Then get some weapons... Golden Tate or Arrelious Benn (although I'm wary of him and think he may be Braylon Edwards 2.0) should be available in the second round. In the third, help out the trenches. John Jerry, Jon Asamoah, or Kyle Calloway and finally in the 4th (because I'm not doing all 7 rounds), get a OLB like Rennie Curran or even a RB like Toby Gerhart or another OL, someone to protect your future QB when you draft him.

The reason I propose this is because the Rams needs to build their team up and provide weapons and protection for their signal caller. Right now, they have a great center and that's about it. Jason Smith is coming off injury next year so you hopefully will have your franchise LT, however, the drafting of Sam Bradford or Clausen will not add 1-2 more games to the win total. Laying the foundation for the future will help come next year where the Rams will probably find themselves again in a position to draft a franchise QB.

And if it came down to me absolutely having to pick a quarterback I would go Clausen. I like Bradford but he will need an elite offensive line for him to have any success in the pros. His extensive injury concerns would scare me off as people will be hitting harder than BYU and Texas defensive linemen and linebackers in the NFL.

ALP1987
04-09-2010, 07:13 PM
If i were the Rams GM and i couldn't find a team to trade with i would take Suh #1 and then try and get McCoy in the 2nd. I think the #1 overall is just too much money to go on a player that you aren't sure about. With Suh you get a dominate DT that can in turn really help your 2 former first round picks in Carriker and Long. You could actually move Carriker back to his natural position of DE if Little doesn't return.


The Rams have alot invested in the D-Line already so i could see why some may be slow to pull the trigger on another D-lineman but when the best player in the draft plays DT then you just have to suck it up and pay the man.

LonghornsLegend
04-09-2010, 07:23 PM
I just cannot understand the "get McNabb" people who felt STL should go after him. So by the time you've fielded a competitive team you need another franchise QB all over again. Washington was different, they were going to miss out on Bradford and Clausen isn't that type of prospect.


If I were STL I would draft Bradford, get a veteran QB who could keep me competitive for a year to 2, I doubt Philly would let Vick go for an early 4th, but maybe a 4th and a mid round next year. Without many weapons and a young offensive line a QB with some athleticism could go a long way.


I'd prefer that if I'm putting my eggs in the Bradford basket that we get a future #1 WR established, and solidy the rest of the offensive line, I'd also draft a RB behind Jackson. He's got alot of miles, who knows how many years he has left, and he seems to miss a few games a year, I'd want someone reliable there instead of throwing out guys like Kennety Darby or Samkon Gado, they never seem to have an NFL quality RB behind him ever.


Avery would be a fine #2, and maybe Bradford would do fine starting from day one, but if I were investing that money he wouldn't take a snap until at least year 2 and hopefully year 3 if the stopgap played well.

NGSeiler
04-09-2010, 07:35 PM
If I were the Rams' GM, I'd take Ndamukong Suh with the first pick and then try to grab a quarterback later (ie. McCoy in the second round).


The internet draft community and Mel Kiper seems to be behind Clausen

ESPN, the main stream public and Todd Mcshay like Bradford.

I wonder how most teams in the NFL see it?

If you believe the unofficial survey of half the league that Charley Casserley did at the combine, it was Bradford unanimously.


My question is this: why do the Rams HAVE to take a QB? Bradford is not the best player in the draft and arguably not the best QB in the draft as can be see by the Clausen vs. Bradford debates even in this thread. Both quarterbacks have major positives but both have at least one major drawback. So, then why?

It is going to take more than one year for the Rams to become a contender. I think everyone can agree on that so why not trade for a veteran quarterback while building the talent around him? Shaun Hill, Jason Campbell, Trent Edwards, and the like should be available fairly cheaply. If that happens then take Suh. I know, I know, St. Louis has concentrated on their DL a lot but Suh is a rare talent and one of the most dominant college defensive tackles in the past decade. He will immediately help any team that drafts him.

Then get some weapons... Golden Tate or Arrelious Benn (although I'm wary of him and think he may be Braylon Edwards 2.0) should be available in the second round. In the third, help out the trenches. John Jerry, Jon Asamoah, or Kyle Calloway and finally in the 4th (because I'm not doing all 7 rounds), get a OLB like Rennie Curran or even a RB like Toby Gerhart or another OL, someone to protect your future QB when you draft him.

The reason I propose this is because the Rams needs to build their team up and provide weapons and protection for their signal caller. Right now, they have a great center and that's about it. Jason Smith is coming off injury next year so you hopefully will have your franchise LT, however, the drafting of Sam Bradford or Clausen will not add 1-2 more games to the win total. Laying the foundation for the future will help come next year where the Rams will probably find themselves again in a position to draft a franchise QB.

And if it came down to me absolutely having to pick a quarterback I would go Clausen. I like Bradford but he will need an elite offensive line for him to have any success in the pros. His extensive injury concerns would scare me off as people will be hitting harder than BYU and Texas defensive linemen and linebackers in the NFL.

Good post, I agree with the vast majority of this. I think the only thing I disagree on is that if I had to take a QB, I'd probably still take Bradford even though I'm quite concerned about his durability.

Also, contrary to what many people think, the Rams do not have a lot invested in their DL already. They only have one big contract (DE Chris Long) on the entire squad.

YAYareaRB
04-09-2010, 07:57 PM
people will be hitting harder than BYU

You take that back! You take it back now!!!!

Matthew Jones
04-09-2010, 08:24 PM
This is definitely an interesting situation the Rams find themselves in. Personally, if I am dead-set on a quarterback there, I'm taking Jimmy Clausen #1 overall because I think he very safely projects into a successful NFL player. Let's talk about Clausen first. From the moment Bradford went down on, Clausen was ranked as the #1 quarterback in this class with the possible exception of Jake Locker, who didn't declare after all. When Bradford went down, he was dropped well out of #1 overall pick contention by a good deal of the people who are now hyping him as the next coming of Peyton Manning. Some had him as their #3 quarterback at that point.

The reasons Clausen was considered the #1 quarterback had a lot to do with the fact that his game is very easy to project to the NFL level. He started quite a few games, took drops from center on a regular basis, he has had to fit balls into tight spaces, and his delivery is compact enough to work in the NFL right now with minor tweaks. Anyone who's trying to make a career for themselves in the real world knows that experience is one of the best qualities to have when trying to get into a field, and the NFL Draft is no different. People look at Clausen and see that he has experience in an NFL offense.

With Bradford...not so much. My biggest concern with his actual play is that he tended to stare down receivers a little too long and wasn't really asked to anticipate throws. A lot of his throws in college were to wide receivers with a good deal of separation between them and a defender. In the NFL, you're not going to get away with staring down a wide receiver, and you're not going to find a wide receiver with five yards between him and a cornerback all too often. Can Bradford adjust to the NFL? He seems like a smart guy, and he'll put in the work on it, but I'd feel better with a guy who I know translates in Clausen.

Many will tell you that Bradford's shoulder has healed, but it seems like most of the people who reference that as a selling point on him aren't considering that it's not just being good as new on the shoulder that's important, it's also being able to take NFL hits. Bradford was hurt twice last year on hits that any quarterback in the NFL should be able to withstand, and really, prior to that we hadn't seen Bradford really take a hit because of the offensive line he was behind. Even if his throwing shoulder is good as new, who's to say that he doesn't get his other shoulder hurt the next time he gets walloped? You can't throw touchdowns from the trainer's room, which is why Marc Bulger isn't the starting quarterback of the Rams.

People say Bradford is a smart player and a good kid. I can buy that, but then again so was Alex Smith (another college spread QB who Nolan Nawrocki called "the same type of mind as Peyton Manning" back in 2005.) It's pretty safe to say Smith hasn't given the 49ers what they expected out of a #1 pick. Thinking back on it though, it seems like a lot of quarterback busts over the last 15 years came from players who didn't play in pro-style offenses. Health Shuler, Tim Couch, Akili/Alex Smith, etc.

The only quality starters currently in the NFL I can think of that didn't play in a pro-style offense in college are Drew Brees and Donovan McNabb. Brees took years to get acclimated to the NFL and really only became one of the top NFL quarterbacks once he was in an ideal situation in New Orleans, and McNabb isn't from a spread. I don't like those odds. It's easy to cite Sam Bradford's 86 touchdown passes at Oklahoma as a reason to draft him #1, but teams don't reward players with $70 million contracts for what they did in college. If they did, Tim Tebow and Colt McCoy would be top-five picks (throwing 88 and 112 touchdown passes, respectively.)

It can be argued that the greatest asset an organization can have is an eye for talent. Draft and sign the right players, and you can be hoisting the Lombardi Trophy at the end of the season. Pick the wrong ones, and you're...well, you're in the position the St. Louis Rams are in. It shouldn't be a surprise, then, that NFL teams spend a lot of time, energy, and resources trying to determine the future success of players. But you know what? For all they've invested, NFL teams don't really do a great job of identifying talent.

The fact that Sam Bradford will almost definitely be the #1 overall pick in a couple of weeks doesn't mean he's going to be a good NFL player. All it means is that the Rams think he's the best pick they could possibly make, and the Rams are the worst team in the league in large part due to the fact that they spent quite a few years making bad personnel decisions. Scouts might have access to game film and things that we as members of a draft message board don't have beyond watching these guys play a few times a year, but that doesn't mean scouts are always right. Otherwise there wouldn't be busts in the NFL.

Worst of all is falling prey to talk that always comes during the final couple months leading up to the draft. Teams want certain players, so they're going to badmouth those guys and put themselves in better position to get them. Teams think someone's overrated, so they'll talk them up in anonymous interviews and hope someone else drafts them over a guy they like more. The way Sam Bradford's hype machine is going, I'd say quite a few teams are hoping the Rams draft him #1. If they were to go Ndamakong Suh, for example, the Buccaneers would probably miss out on either Suh or Gerald McCoy. So it's in Tampa Bay's best interests for Sam Bradford to go #1.

On the other end of the spectrum is Jimmy Clausen, who has been undergoing a lot of criticism from NFL guys, most notably the Cleveland Browns. Mike Holmgren said something along the lines of "I wish I liked him more", and the Browns, a team with a glaring QB need and a top-ten pick that could probably land Jimmy Clausen, were underrepresented at his Pro Day today. I think teams would have to be crazy to let this guy slip out of the top ten, and I really wouldn't be surprised if Cleveland liked him all along and were trying to get themselves in position to take him. That's what I'd do, at least.

STsACE
04-09-2010, 10:19 PM
Being this thread has alot of Bradford vs Clausen to it. I've been wandering this. Could help determine what direction St. Louis would go.

Would Bradford make the better choice if you plan on sitting him for....let's say 2 years? No intention of starting him, even if injuries occur. Most people know he is coming from a non pro style offense. No pressure to start him early. If so, Bradford as first pick.

Does Clausen make the better choice if you plan on him being a starter for the opening game of the 2010 season? Comes from a pro style offense and should be able to adjust his game quicker, allowing an immediate start. If so, Clausen as the first pick.

I'll be the first to admit, as a Browns fan, it seems there is certain pressures associated with the player you draft. At least for the Browns anyway lol

Or does this even make sense?

Brent
04-09-2010, 10:26 PM
does this even make sense?
Yes. In fact, I would argue that taking Bradford buys the coaching staff more time to run the team since the FO would give them some time to develop their new, young passer.

Flyboy
04-09-2010, 10:39 PM
I would take Clausen or Suh with the 1st pick.

Yep. My thoughts exactly.

proshoota25
04-09-2010, 10:45 PM
STL has spent a lot of money on their defensive line with high draft picks in the last few years. To me, the only option is quarterback. My opinion is Clausen>Bradford.

jnew76
04-09-2010, 10:57 PM
Since Bradford looks to be un-signable prior to the draft, I would let the clock expire on the pick and watch to see what Detroit and Tampa did due to the fact that they both have huge needs at DT... I would wait at the podium with 3-4 different names and turn my pick in at #3 at that point turning in the card with either Bradford or Clausen's name on it if no on had traded up to draft the one I targeted. If the one I targeted was taken in a trade, then I would instantly draft McCoy or Suh depending on which one I preferred.

Never gonna happen, but that is what I would do.

Abaddon
04-09-2010, 11:03 PM
Take Suh, absolutely. Then decide if Clausen is worth trading up into the 20s for, or standing pat and taking McCoy.

Abaddon
04-09-2010, 11:04 PM
Since Bradford looks to be un-signable prior to the draft, I would let the clock expire on the pick and watch to see what Detroit and Tampa did due to the fact that they both have huge needs at DT... I would wait at the podium with 3-4 different names and turn my pick in at #3 at that point turning in the card with either Bradford or Clausen's name on it if no on had traded up to draft the one I targeted. If the one I targeted was taken in a trade, then I would instantly draft McCoy or Suh depending on which one I preferred.

Never gonna happen, but that is what I would do.

Why not just take Suh or McCoy at #1? :confused:

ninerfan
04-10-2010, 12:02 AM
Without a doubt I try and trade down some (not alot though) but failing that I draft Bradford and don't look back

Malaka
04-10-2010, 12:08 AM
Why not just take Suh or McCoy at #1? :confused:

Less money to be paid.

diabsoule
04-10-2010, 02:31 AM
STL has spent a lot of money on their defensive line with high draft picks in the last few years. To me, the only option is quarterback. My opinion is Clausen>Bradford.

Since the 2000 draft, the Rams only have two defensive linemen still on the team: Adam Carriker (2007, 13 overall) and Chris Long (2008, 2 overall). Yeah, that's a good deal of money on two good players but they do not have a dominate inside presence. Darrel Scott and Clifton Ryan are their two starting defensive tackles. By drafting Suh or McCoy they would immediately upgrade their DT rotation and give them an elite talent to pair with Carriker and Long. Sure, that's quite a bit of money tied up in the DL but people fail to mention that the Vikings, who have arguably the best DL in the league, and the money they have tied up with those players.

Crickett
04-10-2010, 03:19 AM
Since the 2000 draft, the Rams only have two defensive linemen still on the team: Adam Carriker (2007, 13 overall) and Chris Long (2008, 2 overall). Yeah, that's a good deal of money on two good players but they do not have a dominate inside presence. Darrel Scott and Clifton Ryan are their two starting defensive tackles. By drafting Suh or McCoy they would immediately upgrade their DT rotation and give them an elite talent to pair with Carriker and Long. Sure, that's quite a bit of money tied up in the DL but people fail to mention that the Vikings, who have arguably the best DL in the league, and the money they have tied up with those players.

The upgrade Suh or McCoy would provide is the same upgrade the last (almost) half dozen 1st round defensive linemen the St. Louis Rams drafted this past decade were supposed to provide. Even with Suh or McCoy, nobody is going to confuse the Rams defensive line with the Vikings any time soon. Unless they're looking at bank statements that is.

At some point, you have to go in another direction. Especially when you cut your starting QB.

D-Unit
04-10-2010, 03:24 AM
They should take Clausen #1 overall.

ChiFan24
04-10-2010, 04:38 AM
As a ND fan, Bradford, easily. People are sucked into Clausen for the same reasons they were sucked into Quinn.

And I'm drunk and high right now so I will explain coherently in the morning.

AntoinCD
04-10-2010, 05:38 AM
As a ND fan, Bradford, easily. People are sucked into Clausen for the same reasons they were sucked into Quinn.

And I'm drunk and high right now so I will explain coherently in the morning.

Clausen has a better arm and accuracy than Brady Quinn and is also a lot less erratic than him.

People are sucked in by Bradford because he is tall, clean cut and played on a winning team. They fail to forget he played in a QB friendly system, doesnt have great arm strength and cant get hit without getting injured.

Bradford very well may be a very good QB in a few years, and maybe even best in this class, as he has great accuracy and seems smart with a good head on his shoulders however there are far too many questions in my mind for me to feel comfortable about taking him #1 overall

gouldo
04-10-2010, 05:39 AM
Suh or McCoy. No way do I take a QB 1st overall. History shows that many QB's taken in the 1st couple of picks really struggle due to the pressure placed upon them.

The only QB's taken in the first couple of picks that have really panned out were the Manning boys, Carson Palmer, McNabb, Drew Bledsoe, Elway and Troy Aikman. That goes back to 1983. Nearly 30 years. Not worth the rsik particularly when the front 5 or 7 are average.

Addict
04-10-2010, 05:46 AM
Suh or McCoy. No way do I take a QB 1st overall. History shows that many QB's taken in the 1st couple of picks really struggle due to the pressure placed upon them.

The only QB's taken in the first couple of picks that have really panned out were the Manning boys, Carson Palmer, McNabb, Drew Bledsoe, Elway and Troy Aikman. That goes back to 1983. Nearly 30 years. Not worth the rsik particularly when the front 5 or 7 are average.

going by history, you'd never pick a quarterback.

AntoinCD
04-10-2010, 06:09 AM
Suh or McCoy. No way do I take a QB 1st overall. History shows that many QB's taken in the 1st couple of picks really struggle due to the pressure placed upon them.

The only QB's taken in the first couple of picks that have really panned out were the Manning boys, Carson Palmer, McNabb, Drew Bledsoe, Elway and Troy Aikman. That goes back to 1983. Nearly 30 years. Not worth the rsik particularly when the front 5 or 7 are average.

7 QBs by your logic doesnt sound a lot but when talking about 1st overall it is a little bit skewed.

Since 1983 there have been 14 QBs drafted 1st overall. For the purposes of this arguement I will ommit Matthew Stafford from last year as it is simply too early to include him in this.

So that means between 1983 and 2008 there where 13 QBs drafted 1st overall.

Of those 13 QBs, eight have played in the pro bowl.
4 have won the superbowl for their teams, at least once.
2 are in the hall of fame and Peyton Manning is a certainty to join them.

So from a simple arguements perspective:

61% of QBs drafted first between 1983 and 2008 played at a pro bowl level
7 of the 25 superbowls were won by QBs drafted first overall in that period.
At least 3 of the 13 QBs will end up in the Hall of Fame.

From a pure odds perspective, if there is a 25% chance the QB you take is Hall of Fame bound then any team would be crazy to pass him up at any spot in the draft.

Obviously this is all speculative and stats can only be part of the arguement. However generally people will accept the rough calculation that there is a 50% success rate for first round QBs. As was shown above, 61% of the QBs taken first in the specific period made the pro bowl.

Of the 13 QBs, only 3 are considered complete busts and Jamarcus Russell still has time to turn it around. Assuming he doesn't it leaves the story like this;

Aikman and Elway are both Hall of Famers and rightly so.
Peyton Manning will join them.
Eli Manning joins these three as a QB who has won a superbowl.

Carson Palmer, Vinny Testaverde, Drew Bledsoe and Michael Vick have all, along with the four QBs mentioned above, went to the pro bowl.

Alex Smith is now the starting QB for the SF 49ers.
Jeff George was in the NFL for 16 years.

That leaves Russell, David Carr and Tim Couch as the only QBs who have flat out busted.

This would all indicate that it is a better strategy to draft a QB first overall. However as I mentioned earlier stats are only part of the arguement.

wicket
04-10-2010, 06:19 AM
if you are reading this post you are not reading the post above this one which is a mistake cuz its a great post

Addict
04-10-2010, 06:23 AM
7 QBs by your logic doesnt sound a lot but when talking about 1st overall it is a little bit skewed.

Since 1983 there have been 14 QBs drafted 1st overall. For the purposes of this arguement I will ommit Matthew Stafford from last year as it is simply too early to include him in this.

So that means between 1983 and 2008 there where 13 QBs drafted 1st overall.

Of those 13 QBs, eight have played in the pro bowl.
4 have won the superbowl for their teams, at least once.
2 are in the hall of fame and Peyton Manning is a certainty to join them.

So from a simple arguements perspective:

61% of QBs drafted first between 1983 and 2008 played at a pro bowl level
7 of the 25 superbowls were won by QBs drafted first overall in that period.
At least 3 of the 13 QBs will end up in the Hall of Fame.

From a pure odds perspective, if there is a 25% chance the QB you take is Hall of Fame bound then any team would be crazy to pass him up at any spot in the draft.

Obviously this is all speculative and stats can only be part of the arguement. However generally people will accept the rough calculation that there is a 50% success rate for first round QBs. As was shown above, 61% of the QBs taken first in the specific period made the pro bowl.

Of the 13 QBs, only 3 are considered complete busts and Jamarcus Russell still has time to turn it around. Assuming he doesn't it leaves the story like this;

Aikman and Elway are both Hall of Famers and rightly so.
Peyton Manning will join them.
Eli Manning joins these three as a QB who has won a superbowl.

Carson Palmer, Vinny Testaverde, Drew Bledsoe and Michael Vick have all, along with the four QBs mentioned above, went to the pro bowl.

Alex Smith is now the starting QB for the SF 49ers.
Jeff George was in the NFL for 16 years.

That leaves Russell, David Carr and Tim Couch as the only QBs who have flat out busted.

This would all indicate that it is a better strategy to draft a QB first overall. However as I mentioned earlier stats are only part of the arguement.

excellent post. I just want to note that Couch's ultimate faillure was more injury-related than anyhting else, he was a fine player.

PoopSandwich
04-10-2010, 06:25 AM
Trade the Browns the #1 pick for a reasonable price so they can land Bradford.

stephenson86
04-10-2010, 06:37 AM
give me sam any day of the week

M.O.T.H.
04-10-2010, 06:38 AM
Bradford at #1, best WR on your board at #33.

I think Bradford and Clausen will both be great down the road. I actually prefer Calusen, but the attitude would def. be a turn off for me. I cant see Clausen failing, though. As Scott alluded to, there is a lot of polish here. Jimmy's been working at this since he was pup, and it really shows. He's very sound.

Malaka
04-10-2010, 06:38 AM
Suh or McCoy. No way do I take a QB 1st overall. History shows that many QB's taken in the 1st couple of picks really struggle due to the pressure placed upon them.

The only QB's taken in the first couple of picks that have really panned out were the Manning boys, Carson Palmer, McNabb, Drew Bledsoe, Elway and Troy Aikman. That goes back to 1983. Nearly 30 years. Not worth the rsik particularly when the front 5 or 7 are average.

:rolleyes:

1980: No QBs in top 10
1981: #6 Richard Campbell: Bust: 3TDs 9INTs Career Stats
1982: #4 Art Schlicter: Bust: Gambling #5 Jim McMahon: Pro Bowler Super Bowl Winner
1983: #1 John Elway: HoF #7 Todd Blackledge:Bust: Career passer rating 60.2
1984: No Qbs in top 10
1985: No Qbs in top 10
1986: #3 Jim Everett: 12 seasons 1 pro bowl appearance
1987: #1 Vinny Testaverde: 21 NFL Seasons 2 pro bowl appearances #6 Kelly Stouffer: Bust: 4 NFL seasons
1988: No QBs in top 10
1989: #1 Troy Aikman: HoF
1990: #1 Jeff George: this is subjective he wasn't awful though his attitude was #7 Andre Ware: Bust: 5 TDs
1991: No QBs in top 10
1992: #6 David Klingler: Bust : 16TDs 22 INTs Career Stats
1993: #1 Drew Bledsoe: 13 NFL Seasons 4 Pro Bowl appearances #2 Rick Mirer: Bust: 50 TDs 76 INTs Career Stats
1994: #3 Heath Shuler: Bust: Now a congressman for North Carolina #6 Trent Dilfer: Again subjective, but I'll tweak percentages with him George and Testaverde.
1995: #3 Steve McNair possible HoF?
1996: No QBs in top 10
1997: No QBs in top 10
1998: #1 Peyton Manning #2 Ryan Leaf: Bust
1999: #1 Tim Couch: Bust #2 Donovan McNabb #3 Akili Smith: Bust
2000: No QBs in top 10
2001: #1 Michael Vick: Will tweak
2002: #1 David Carr: Bust #3 Joey Harrington: Bust
2003: #1 Carson Palmer #7 Byron Leftwich: Bust
2004: #1 Eli Manning #4 Philip Rivers
2005: #1 Alex Smith: Bust

And 05' is as far back as we can go in judging these QBs, now the momentyou have all been waiting for... the results.

The bust rate at...
#7 = 100% (3 selections)
#6 = 66% (3 selections/Dilfer not a bust) 100%(Dilfer a bust)
#5 = 0% (1 selection)
#4 = 50% (2 selections)
#3 = 60% (5 selections)
#2 = 66% (3 selections)
#1 = 50% counting the subjective 25% if you don't (12 selections)

So lets meet at the middle and say the bust rate for QBs selected from 1980-2005 is 35% unless you're superstitious and I have only proven to you that you should draft QBs with the #5 overall pick, I think we can agree that 35% is pretty damn good to be betting on.

However we must also realize draft position has absolutely nothing to do with how the prospect plays the game, its a number of things but certainly not the pressure of being a #1 overall pick then by you're logic being the 7th overall pick is much much harder.

I hope you have been enlightened.

WCH
04-10-2010, 01:31 PM
:rolleyes:
#7 = 100% (3 selections)
#6 = 66% (3 selections/Dilfer not a bust) 100%(Dilfer a bust)
#5 = 0% (1 selection)
#4 = 50% (2 selections)
#3 = 60% (5 selections)
#2 = 66% (3 selections)
#1 = 50% counting the subjective 25% if you don't (12 selections)


The truly enlightening thing about that is the fact that picks 2-7 turn out so bad. It looks like bad teams reach for QBs and pick the wrong guy.

That's a 72% bust rate. This isn't surprising, since teams picking in the top-7 are usually there because their front office is incompetent. Your analysis shows that even retards are pretty good at spotting Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer, and Drew Bledsoe; but aren't so good at figuring out that Akili Smith, Andre Ware, and Ryan Leaf all suck.

RaiderNation
04-10-2010, 01:36 PM
Id go Suh #1 and maybe try to trade up for Clausen or wait til the 3rd or 4th and take LeFevour

TheMorningZoo
04-10-2010, 01:44 PM
Id go Suh #1 and maybe try to trade up for Clausen or wait til the 3rd or 4th and take LeFevour

Im starting to think since everyone is talking about the Clausen slide, if they opt to go Suh, then Bradford is gobbled up by someone in the top 10 - Browns, Raiders, Bills, Redskins? Who knows? The Rams could always trade back for Clausen, or take McCoy in the 2nd.

Thread Killer
04-11-2010, 09:32 AM
Past results of other players have absolutely nothing to do with what going to happen in the future with these guys, thus they are a waste of time, IMO. For example, Aaron Rodgers didn't suck because all of the other Tedford QBs sucked.

If I were the Rams GM, I'd do exactly what they are going to do and that is select QB Sam Bradford and get ready for the phones to ring off the hook for teams looking to move up for the #33 pick on day two.

RealityCheck
04-11-2010, 09:34 AM
Take Suh, a WR in the 2nd, a linebacker in the 3rd, and get my QB in the 4th. Hell, I'd go BPA in the 4th and 5th and take the best QB available in the 6th (Levi Brown, Skelton, Canfield)