Week 5 Discussion Thread. - Page 15

Rosebud · 10-05-2012, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Complex

So there not in place if their missing an entire OL,a WR and RB.Plus I think Kendricks but w/e.

They need to add two really good OL and the line will be decent. They might need to add a WR but they might not if their young guys develop well, and a big RB isn't a big deal, that something a late round pick/UDFA can fill with Richardson and Pead to fill most of the RB duties. That's 4 needs, of which none is QB. You're looking at most 3 first two day picks, of which they have a **** load, to have a good offense with a defense already very strong along the DL and at corner.

armageddon · 10-05-2012, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

They need to add two really good OL and the line will be decent. They might need to add a WR but they might not if their young guys develop well, and a big RB isn't a big deal, that something a late round pick/UDFA can fill with Richardson and Pead to fill most of the RB duties. That's 4 needs, of which none is QB. You're looking at most 3 first two day picks, of which they have a **** load, to have a good offense with a defense already very strong along the DL and at corner.

That's all they really lack. Their D is legit. If Bradford had a little more time, I think the WR's would benefit greatly. Both their #1's in 2013 should be spent on the o-line. Draft the best LT, then move Saffold to RT. Hunter and Richardson would be very good for depth. Hunter is playing really well too. The Rams are close to becoming a force.

bigbluedefense · 10-05-2012, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armageddon

That's all they really lack. Their D is legit. If Bradford had a little more time, I think the WR's would benefit greatly. Both their #1's in 2013 should be spent on the o-line. Draft the best LT, then move Saffold to RT. Hunter and Richardson would be very good for depth. Hunter is playing really well too. bThe Rams are close to becoming a force.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves...

The Rams have promise. But there are tons of question marks on offense and it needs to come together fast. The defense is legit.

The offense is anemic.

armageddon · 10-05-2012, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

Let's not get ahead of ourselves...

The Rams have promise. But there are tons of question marks on offense and it needs to come together fast. The defense is legit.

The offense is anemic.

2 olineman and a legit #1 WR would go a long way. Give Bradford time and he is deadly. He's under pressure most plays.

bigbluedefense · 10-05-2012, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armageddon

2 olineman and a legit #1 WR would go a long way. Give Bradford time and he is deadly. He's under pressure most plays.

Deadly? Let's try to get him consistent first. And that's coming from a big Bradford fan.

And 2 OL and a legit #1 isn't something you just get in 1 offseason. You make it sound like they can just go to the player tree and pluck those 3 pieces out and be good to go.

Babylon · 10-05-2012, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon41_80

NFC Best is a perfect 9-0 at home this year.

And i would say conservatively speaking 4 of the top 6 or 7 defenses in football.

As for the Sam Bradford talk i think we've seen what he could do at Oklahoma with talent around him so he'll be more than good enough to get them to the playoffs in a year or two. With 4 first round picks in the next two drafts they're probably a lot close than some of the better known teams out there.

BeerBaron · 10-05-2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armageddon

2 olineman and a legit #1 WR would go a long way. Give Bradford time and he is deadly. He's under pressure most plays.

Because these things are incredibly easy to find.

Let's take a look at what the Rams have done to go 3-2 this year before we start using words like "force" to describe them.

Played a Lions team that is proving to be very lousy close. Loss.

Beat the Redskins at home. Not bad. Nothing great, but not bad.

Failed to even enter the red zone against the Bears. Loss.

Lost to the Seahawks in a game where your only TD was on a fake punt. Loss.

Beat a Cardinals team who, while they were 4-0, had no offense to speak of and needed an incredible comeback to beat the Dolphins a week before.

I realize you're excited to actually have a winning record for the first time in like 5 years, but from out an outsiders perspective, this is still an incredibly weak team.

You've also got a span against the Packers, Pats and 49ers twice coming up, not to mention the Cardinals and Seahawks yet again.

I also think that Bradford is closer to mid-Texans-career David Carr than a franchise QB at this point. Blame the receivers, blame the o-line...there is blame to give there for sure...but the dude was 7-21 last night including a span of 11 straight incomplete passes. Some blame has to go to the QB too for pulling the trigger way too fast at times and throwing balls that were no where near anyone.

BeerBaron · 10-05-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babylon

And i would say conservatively speaking 4 of the top 6 or 7 defenses in football.

As for the Sam Bradford talk i think we've seen what he could do at Oklahoma with talent around him so he'll be more than good enough to get them to the playoffs in a year or two. With 4 first round picks in the next two drafts they're probably a lot close than some of the better known teams out there.

No. No. No. Unacceptable argument.

Matt Leinart won a Heisman with all time legendary talent around him. What did he do in the NFL? Ken Dorsey won championships in college with legendary talent around him. What did he do in the NFL? The list of QBs who were great in college with immense talent around them but did nothing in the NFL could go on for a long, long, long long while.

Pick a different argument. That one is just terrible. Surround any guy with pro bowl talent and he'll look good.

Like that Alex Smith guy.

SuperPacker · 10-05-2012, 01:13 PM

A good QB would increase the performance of the rest of the offense and not rely on having elite talent around him.

If the only way you're QB is going to be decent is by giving him elite receivers and an elite offensive line, you should just move on.

FUNBUNCHER · 10-05-2012, 01:14 PM

Bradford may not be able to elevate the talent around him like Brady, Eli or Rodgers, but I do believe he can 'maximize' talent, that is, he can make stud playmakers looks like pro bowlers. Similar to Kurt Warner.

I think the Rams can fill several holes in this upcoming draft. They should be able to draft a top 3 LT prospect and target whoever they grade out as one of the better WRs in this draft.

Their D is right there, good enough to win in the playoffs.

abaddon41_80 · 10-05-2012, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

No. No. No. Unacceptable argument.

Matt Leinart won a Heisman with all time legendary talent around him. What did he do in the NFL? Ken Dorsey won championships in college with legendary talent around him. What did he do in the NFL? The list of QBs who were great in college with immense talent around them but did nothing in the NFL could go on for a long, long, long long while.

Pick a different argument. That one is just terrible. Surround any guy with pro bowl talent and he'll look good.

Like that Alex Smith guy.

Why you gotta do this to me?

BeerBaron · 10-05-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon41_80

Why you gotta do this to me?

It was more for fun at that point. I knew you couldn't be too far away.

abaddon41_80 · 10-05-2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

It was more for fun at that point. I knew you couldn't be too far away.

I was actually worlds away. I just sense a disturbance whenever Alex Smith gets brought up

BeerBaron · 10-05-2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon41_80

I was actually worlds away. I just sense a disturbance whenever Alex Smith gets brought up

It's like Scottyboy when you mention Rutgers.

Somewhere in the darkest reaches of New Jersey, his Rutgers-sense just went off.

LonghornsLegend · 10-05-2012, 01:33 PM

Sam Bradford arguments are so old to me. But let's just keep listening to Rams' fans tell us about how if he had an elite offensive line, 2 pro bowl WR's, and now he'll need a franchise RB, then he'll be able to show his actual talent. This will be fun to listen to every season every week until the Rams decide to move on.

Raiderz4Life · 10-05-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperPacker

A good QB would increase the performance of the rest of the offense and not rely on having elite talent around him.

If the only way you're QB is going to be decent is by giving him elite receivers and an elite offensive line, you should just move on.

I hate this stupid argument.

ELITE QB's do that. Not every good QB can and its absolutely stupid to expect every single one of em to do it.

bantx · 10-05-2012, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiderz4life

I hate this stupid argument.

ELITE QB's do that. Not every good QB can and its absolutely stupid to expect every single one of em to do it.

Then the ones that can't aren't good.

FUNBUNCHER · 10-05-2012, 01:40 PM

Not one of the WRs Bradford had at OU has busted a grape in the pros.
But many of his Olineman have been major players in the NFL.

The argument that Bradford needs protection to develop, something he's never really had in 3 years in St. Louis IMO is valid.

It's still only his 31st game as a pro and you can see his improvement game to game.

FUNBUNCHER · 10-05-2012, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bantx

Then the ones that can't aren't good.

Tom Brady is the only QB I can think of who's been dominant without at least one elite WR for the majority of his career.

The one year he had a top 10 talent at WR, he set passing records.

Most good QBs have had at least ONE very good to elite WR to throw the ball to.

Sam Bradford isn't Tom Brady.
Newsflash; the sun rose this morning.

BeerBaron · 10-05-2012, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUNBUNCHER

Not one of the WRs Bradford had at OU has busted a grape in the pros.
But many of his Olineman have been major players in the NFL.

The argument that Bradford needs protection to develop, something he's never really had in 3 years in St. Louis IMO is valid.

It's still only his 31st game as a pro and you can see his improvement game to game.

Really? Because I haven't seen it in the two games of his I've watched closely this year (Bears and last night.)

Like I said, you can cast deserved blame at the o-line and receivers, but Bradford's hair trigger in the pocket and McNabb-like accuracy deserve blame as well. Even during the moments where he didn't have defenders on him, the ball was coming out way too fast and it wasn't placed where it needed to be too often.

I think my David Carr comparison is closest right now. Arguments were made back then saying that he just needed better protection and better playmakers...but by the time he actually got them, he was so psychologically broken that he could no longer utilize them.

We'll see if that happens with Bradford when (or even if) the Rams use all these upcoming first round picks to help him. (Seeing as how Jeff Fisher is the coach, don't be surprised if they aren't exactly keen on upgrading the WR spot...how many years did we project the Titans to take a first round WR before it finally happened?)

niel89 · 10-05-2012, 01:49 PM

I'm just finishing up watching this game and both these defenses are legit. Their offense and OL stink, but those defenses are good.

Long is a good DE. It's still funny when people were whispering bust because he didn't immediately light the world on fire. His career has developed just fine. Going 4>5>8.5>13 sacks in his first 4 years.

Janoris Jenkins bit on some stuff out there like a rookie will, but he is going to be a player if he can keep his nose clean. That is still a major question though and pretty much why he slipped in the draft.

BeerBaron · 10-05-2012, 01:52 PM

Yeah, those defenses are fine. It's hard for me to get a real good feel of the Rams d-line because I've only seen them in extended action against the Bears and Cardinals who have bottom 5 o-lines in the league, but they look like they could do some damage headed forward.

armageddon · 10-05-2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeerBaron

Because these things are incredibly easy to find.

Let's take a look at what the Rams have done to go 3-2 this year before we start using words like "force" to describe them.

Played a Lions team that is proving to be very lousy close. Loss.

Beat the Redskins at home. Not bad. Nothing great, but not bad.

Failed to even enter the red zone against the Bears. Loss.

Lost to the Seahawks in a game where your only TD was on a fake punt. Loss.

Beat a Cardinals team who, while they were 4-0, had no offense to speak of and needed an incredible comeback to beat the Dolphins a week before.

I realize you're excited to actually have a winning record for the first time in like 5 years, but from out an outsiders perspective, this is still an incredibly weak team.

You've also got a span against the Packers, Pats and 49ers twice coming up, not to mention the Cardinals and Seahawks yet again.

I also think that Bradford is closer to mid-Texans-career David Carr than a franchise QB at this point. Blame the receivers, blame the o-line...there is blame to give there for sure...but the dude was 7-21 last night including a span of 11 straight incomplete passes. Some blame has to go to the QB too for pulling the trigger way too fast at times and throwing balls that were no where near anyone.

pssss, the Rams won that game

Rosebud · 10-05-2012, 01:54 PM

I'm not saying he needs a great OL and weapons, but all young QBs need help and the ones that have flourished all got good support, Peyton got Edge, Harrison and Glenn, Brady didn't explode as a passer until he got Welker and Moss and before then had a great defense, strong OL and running game, Brees had Gates and LDT, Rodgers had that receiving corps, Palmer had Ochocinco when he was awesome. Bradford doesn't. He's making progress, but he's just not in a position to flourish right now because his OL is god awful and he doesn't have a stud WR to bail him out. He has some young guys who could become players, he has a good set of RBs and he had Amendola his rookie year. I'm not saying wait until he has an Alex Smith like supporting cast, but at least wait to see what happens when the OL isn't terribad next year. If the rams hit FA for the best OL and pick one in the first that would make a world of difference. With a full cadre of picks to continue building the team's depth.

Bradford still flashes great play. Those passes were wonderful throws, he's figuring out how to operate with the hand he's dealt and he's mentally tough. Those are all great signs, this isn't a kid losing his job to journeymen who's under utilizing his weapons. For a youngin I think he's been doing a fine job utilizing the talent around him, and for a young QB that's all you can ask. It takes time to learn how to QB and even beasts take time to learn how to elevate their talent, Bradford still has plenty of it, especially if the Rams can squeeze 7 or 8 wins out of the season.

Complex · 10-05-2012, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperPacker

A good QB would increase the performance of the rest of the offense and not rely on having elite talent around him.

If the only way you're QB is going to be decent is by giving him elite receivers and an elite offensive line, you should just move on.

Besides Tom brady and Phillip Rivers who else has done it? Rodgers has had talent all of his career. Eli struggled when Plaxico shoot himself and I doubt he made Cruz better. The guy was balling out in the preseason might of been good his rookie season if he didn't get hurt. Peyton the guy had multiple 1st rounders around him and struggled when he lost Wayne(?) and Clark.