Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;667246]Chris Samuels, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Randy Thomas, and Jon Jansen was easily one of the best lines we had. Obviously they don't compare to the hogs but nevertheless in 2005-2007 (Jansen missed most of 2007 but they were still very good) they were awesome. They had one last hurrah in the first half of 2008 and boy did they dominate. Maybe we could win a Super Bowl with JC playing behind a line like that who knows.[/quote]

Overrated oline play for the last decade.

Except for Chris Samuels.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=wilsowilso;667336]Overrated oline play for the last decade.

Except for Chris Samuels.[/quote]

Agreed. There were very strong attributes among them but not a situation where all guys were good at all things. Our run game was largely based on Thomas, regardless of going right or left because he'd pull a corner to lead. He was the only truly superior run-blocker of the group IMO. Samuels was very good. Dock and Jansen pretty good. Rabach just average.

Similar story on pass-protection except that Samuels was the superior guy there.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=celts32;667195]That doesn't surprise me at all. Offensive lines are generally decorated when the team wins. Jansen was very good but that team was never getting 2 pro bowl OL with thier record so when the time came for a pro bowl honor Samuels would always get the honor.[/quote]
This, exactly.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;667246]Chris Samuels, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Randy Thomas, and Jon Jansen was easily one of the best lines we had. Obviously they don't compare to the hogs but nevertheless in 2005-2007 (Jansen missed most of 2007 but they were still very good) they were awesome. They had one last hurrah in the first half of 2008 and boy did they dominate. Maybe we could win a Super Bowl with JC playing behind a line like that who knows.

Anyway todays wish: Okung-McCoy. It will probably change tomorrow.[/quote]He was behind that line in 2007 and half of 2006. Or do you mean Jason now?

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=SmootSmack;667238]You know what's funny? We also got a conditional draft pick (maybe more) in that deal

You know what's even funnier? Three years before that trade the Raiders passed on a chance to sign Doug Williams opening the door for the Redskins to sign him

You know what's sad? The guy in Oakland who insisted on pulling the trigger on that deal...Mike Shanahan[/quote]

He's been looking out for our best interests for awhile now, awesome!

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;667334]You say that but they never even won the division. I love the individual pieces but don't you need results to be compared to any of the lines that dominated for a decade?[/quote]
Blowing a hole in the argument that a good line alone will get you there.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=Lotus;667255]For me, McCoy does not impress as an upgrade. So my wish today, barring Bradford, is either:
1st OT Okung
2nd RB Jahvid Best
4th OT Kyle Calloway
5th LB Darryl Sharpton
[B]7th C John Estes[/B]

or

1st OT Okung
2nd OT Charles Brown or Vlad Ducasse
4th RB Montario Hardesty
5th LB Darryl Sharpton
[B]7th C John Estes
[/B]
As with you, every day for me is a new opportunity for a changed opinion. :)[/quote]

you think that he could be a good center for us in the zone blocking scheme?

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=tryfuhl;667403]Blowing a hole in the argument that a good line alone will get you there.[/quote]

I don't think anyone is saying a good o-line alone will get you there anymore than a good QB alone will get you there. If they are, they should probably rethink it.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=tryfuhl;667403]Blowing a hole in the argument that a good line alone will get you there.[/quote]

Whose argument is that?

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

Bradford is not a better prospect than Stafford...sorry.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;667421]you think that he could be a good center for us in the zone blocking scheme?[/quote]

Estes might be. Might not. I think he might be worth a low-round shot.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

So if the Rams take Bradford and the Lions take Okung, then that means one of the two best players in the draft will be on the board when our pick comes in: McCoy or Suh. we'd have no problem trading down, although i'd find it very very hard to pass on either of those guys.

Drafting Suh/McCoy, keeping J Campbell, and drafting an OT at 36 >>>> Drafting Clausen at 4 and an OT at 36.

While there are always good players at the top of the draft, we're garaunteed one of Suh, MCCoy, Okung or Bradford. Hopefully the Rams do us a favor and take Bradford, saving us from ourselves.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;667506]...[B] saving us from ourselves[/B].[/quote]

I hate that phrase.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

he's right tho

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;667506]So if the Rams take Bradford and the Lions take Okung, then that means one of the two best players in the draft will be on the board when our pick comes in: McCoy or Suh. we'd have no problem trading down, although i'd find it very very hard to pass on either of those guys.

Drafting Suh/McCoy, keeping J Campbell, and drafting an OT at 36 >>>> Drafting Clausen at 4 and an OT at 36.

While there are always good players at the top of the draft, we're garaunteed one of Suh, MCCoy, Okung or Bradford. Hopefully the Rams do us a favor and take Bradford, saving us from ourselves.[/quote]

I would put Berry in there as well. As much as is said about him I still think he's undervalued. He has great football instincts, he's smart and he's fast. He has the brains and talent to make any defense better.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=53Fan;667525]I would put Berry in there as well. As much as is said about him I still think he's undervalued. He has great football instincts, he's smart and he's fast. He has the brains and talent to make any defense better.[/quote]

Berrys a great player, and if we didnt have so many more pressing needs, i'd be all for taking him. since there's not much risk we will take him, i doubt anyone would want to trade up to 4 to get him either. he'll probably go somewhere between 5 and 10, so if someone lower down in the draft wants him, they wont have to trade all the way up to 4 to get him.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;667517]I hate that phrase.[/quote]

perhaps i should say, "saving us from the ghost of snyders past," then. however, from what i've read, Allen is a STRONG believer in building through free agency. Unfortunately, in Tampa Bay he was always shackled by the stingiest owners in the NFL. I'm somewhat concerned that Allen will suffer from the same "kid in a candy store" syndrome that Gibbs said he experienced in his first season back in the NFL. Snyders generosity and willingness to spend money on the team is a great thing, but it can also be very harmful when combined with a GM who is "overzealous." Shanahan and Allen need to be aggressive in free agency, but they also need to excersice some restraint. hopefully, they won't make the same mistakes that gibbs 2.0 made.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;667540]perhaps i should say, "saving us from the ghost of snyders past," then. however, from what i've read, Allen is a STRONG believer in building through free agency. Unfortunately, in Tampa Bay he was always shackled by the stingiest owners in the NFL. I'm somewhat concerned that Allen will suffer from the same "kid in a candy store" syndrome that Gibbs said he experienced in his first season back in the NFL. Snyders generosity and willingness to spend money on the team is a great thing, but it can also be very harmful when combined with a GM who is "overzealous." Shanahan and Allen need to be aggressive in free agency, but they also need to excersice some restraint. hopefully, they won't make the same mistakes that gibbs 2.0 made.[/quote]
Good post, and yes I like "ghosts of snyder's past" much better!

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

Has anyone heard or is there any rumors of the Skins trading up to #1 to draft Braford? I'm not crazy about that idea but i have a huge man crush on him.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;667506]So if the Rams take Bradford and the Lions take Okung, then that means one of the two best players in the draft will be on the board when our pick comes in: McCoy or Suh. we'd have no problem trading down, although i'd find it very very hard to pass on either of those guys.

[B]Drafting Suh/McCoy, keeping J Campbell, and drafting an OT at 36 >>>> Drafting Clausen at 4 and an OT at 36.[/B]

While there are always good players at the top of the draft, we're garaunteed one of Suh, MCCoy, Okung or Bradford. Hopefully the Rams do us a favor and take Bradford, saving us from ourselves.[/quote]

I'm with you. If we can't get our favorite OT or our favorite QB, we should scoop up the elite DT who is left over. If we play our cards right, such a choice would smooth our transition to a 3-4 as well as providing greater value for the #4 pick.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;667559]Has anyone heard or is there any rumors of the Skins trading up to #1 to draft Braford? I'm not crazy about that idea but i have a huge man crush on him.[/quote]

I like Bradford a lot, too. But to trade up, following the draft value chart, would cost us the equivalent of the 12th overall pick in the first round. I think the price is too dear.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=Lotus;667562]I'm with you. If we can't get our favorite OT or our favorite QB, we should scoop up the elite DT who is left over. If we play our cards right, such a choice would smooth our transition to a 3-4 as well as providing greater value for the #4 pick.[/quote]

Generally speaking, i'm in favor of taking BPA, regardless of position in the first round, especially at the top. Hopefully, we wont have a pick this high for a long time. we need to make the most of it and ensure that whomever we pick is a bonafide stud who will be a consistent pro-bowler. If we're looking at things long-term, you realy can't go wrong selecting BPA.

I understand we added Haynesworth, Orakpo, and Jarmon last year, and our OL is in shambles, but Haynesworth is only going to be here 3 more years. Orakpo, Carter, and Jarmon are going to be LBs in the 3-4. Other than Haynesworth (who'll only be on the field about 60% of the time), we don't have anyone of note on our DL. Drafting McCoy or Suh won't provide the quick fix our OL needs, but it certainly would fill a need on our team AND be good for our team in the long-term.

If Bradford and Okung are off the board, it would require a really sweet deal from another team for me to elect to trade down instead of drafting Suh or McCoy. Hopefully, we can upgrade OT and OG in free agency and give ourselves some more flexibility in the draft.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;667575]Generally speaking, i'm in favor of taking BPA, regardless of position in the first round, especially at the top. Hopefully, we wont have a pick this high for a long time. we need to make the most of it and ensure that whomever we pick is a bonafide stud who will be a consistent pro-bowler. If we're looking at things long-term, you realy can't go wrong selecting BPA.

I understand we added Haynesworth, Orakpo, and Jarmon last year, and our OL is in shambles, but Haynesworth is only going to be here 3 more years. Orakpo, Carter, and Jarmon are going to be LBs in the 3-4. Other than Haynesworth (who'll only be on the field about 60% of the time), we don't have anyone of note on our DL. Drafting McCoy or Suh won't provide the quick fix our OL needs, but it certainly would fill a need on our team AND be good for our team in the long-term.

If Bradford and Okung are off the board, it would require a really sweet deal from another team for me to elect to trade down instead of drafting Suh or McCoy. Hopefully, we can upgrade OT and OG in free agency and give ourselves some more flexibility in the draft.[/quote]

Well put. If you want to reach a bit with the 4th pick in the 4th round to meet a need, fine. But to reach with the 4th overall pick is foolish. At #4 overall you make sure to bring home the best stud you can find, regardless of need.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

If Bradford (i dont want him) and Russell Okung (would like him) are off the board when the #4 pick comes around, how in THE SAM HELL do some ppl say no to even lookin at Eric Berry? i think #4 is TOO HIGH to reach for a different OT. @ #4 you wanted to draft the BEST player you can. He might have the overall #1 talent in this whole draft. He said so himself and did it in the most humble of ways. Just came off sounding confident not cocky.

Look what Ed Reed has done for the Ravens defense all these years. Not saying he'll duplicate that production but its feasible. Remember how excited we all were to pair up Sean Taylor and Laron Landry? AREA 51. Well we could put Laron back at SS where he belongs and bring our safeties back to a NO FLY ZONE. And the Saints proved this year that a defense can give up yards but be more effective getting takeaways.

Someone said you can draft berry and move him to CB, forget that. Leave him @ FS and let him be the ball hawk he is. If you're considered a Top 5 pick then why would you be drafted to change position. Thats ludacris.

So say Bradford goes 1, Suh/McCoy goes two, Okung goes 3, that leaves us with Suh/McCoy and Berry as the top prospects on the board. Suh/McCoy are good, but we're transitioning to a 3-4. DL in 3-4 are space eaters. YOU WANT TO WASTE A #4 PICK ON A SPACE EATER? i dont.

Then Hopefully we get Montario Hardesty in the 4th to compliment Clinton Portis. I aint even a Vols fan at all but i would be happy to see the new 2010 Tennesskins! LMAO

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=PHazard;667687]If Bradford (i dont want him) and Russell Okung (would like him) are off the board when the #4 pick comes around, how in THE SAM HELL do some ppl say no to even lookin at Eric Berry? i think #4 is TOO HIGH to reach for a different OT. @ #4 you wanted to draft the BEST player you can. He might have the overall #1 talent in this whole draft. He said so himself and did it in the most humble of ways. Just came off sounding confident not cocky.

Look what Ed Reed has done for the Ravens defense all these years. Not saying he'll duplicate that production but its feasible. Remember how excited we all were to pair up Sean Taylor and Laron Landry? AREA 51. Well we could put Laron back at SS where he belongs and bring our safeties back to a NO FLY ZONE. And the Saints proved this year that a defense can give up yards but be more effective getting takeaways.

Someone said you can draft berry and move him to CB, forget that. Leave him @ FS and let him be the ball hawk he is. If you're considered a Top 5 pick then why would you be drafted to change position. Thats ludacris.

So say Bradford goes 1, Suh/McCoy goes two, Okung goes 3, that leaves us with Suh/McCoy and Berry as the top prospects on the board. Suh/McCoy are good, but we're transitioning to a 3-4. DL in 3-4 are space eaters. YOU WANT TO WASTE A #4 PICK ON A SPACE EATER? i dont.

Then Hopefully we get Montario Hardesty in the 4th to compliment Clinton Portis. I aint even a Vols fan at all but i would be happy to see the new 2010 Tennesskins! LMAO[/quote]

Ummmm....Alright if Bradford and Okung are off the board you'd have to take Suh or Berry if both were avail. You gotta go with Suh first. Safety is a need but not that big of need to take 4th overall. If we didn't have Laundry (not that he's playing well) i'd say yes, def. take Berry. I still have faith in the Dirty 30.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;667706]Ummmm....Alright if Bradford and Okung are off the board you'd have to take Suh or Berry if both were avail. You gotta go with Suh first. Safety is a need but not that big of need to take 4th overall. If we didn't have Laundry (not that he's playing well) i'd say yes, def. take Berry. I still have faith in the Dirty 30.[/quote]

Did you read what i wrote? I have faith in Landry as well. But my faith in him jumps a good 85% if playing at SS. Berry is a natural FS who makes excellent reads and knows how to play the ball. If we have a secondary that has Landry close to the Line delivering hits/run support, AND Eric Berry AND DeAngelo Hall bein ballhawks that would improve our defense/takeaways immediately. in a 3-4 Suh would be a DE, n in a 3-4, the DL take up as many blocks as they can so the LB can make plays. Its not an impact position. Berry would benefit us more so than Suh in our new Defense.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

^ in the situation where the #1 QB and #1 OT are gone at pick #4,

1) Berry is a good choice. It seems that he will make an excellent safety. As you describe he is tempting to pick.

2) Nonetheless Suh or McCoy might, that is might, give the best value for the pick. In our new 3-4 front, one could argue that AH would make a disruptive big end and might be happier there anyway. Jarmon could beef up a bit and play the other end. McCoy or Suh would be left the nose tackle slot. Certainly neither one of those guys is a classic big clogger like Wilfork, but that's ok. Instead the drafted nose tackle could play a quick, disruptive, one-gap style like Jay Ratliff. Suh is 300 lbs.; McCoy is 297 lbs.; Ratliff is 302 lbs. Our new nose tackle could end up being a super-Ratliff. If we are to switch to a 3-4, wouldn't it be awesome to have a Ratliff (or better) working disruptive magic in our middle?

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=Lotus;667716]
2) Nonetheless Suh or McCoy might, that is might, give the best value for the pick. In our new 3-4 front, one could argue that AH would make a disruptive big end and might be happier there anyway. Jarmon could beef up a bit and play the other end. [/quote]
I think it's a lock the Phillip Daniels is going to man that LDE spot. Monty and/or Golston may be shipped out and they will look for another big DE/DT to put behind him.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

IF Okung is gone and Suh or McCoy are steill there you take one of them. No question.
Bradford is over rated.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;667721][B]I think it's a lock the Phillip Daniels is going to man that LDE spot.[/B] Monty and/or Golston may be shipped out and they will look for another big DE/DT to put behind him.[/quote]

I think that that is the plan and I have no opposition...but for how long? Daniels is in his twilight.

There are whispers of Jarmon's being tried as a LB. If so, I hope that he fails badly at LB. Then they'll keep him at end where he belongs. He just needs some more weight and he can be a fine young 3-4 end.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=Lotus;667725]I think that that is the plan and I have no opposition...but for how long? Daniels is in his twilight.

There are whispers of Jarmon's being tried as a LB. If so, I hope that he fails badly at LB. Then they'll keep him at end where he belongs. He just needs some more weight and he can be a fine young 3-4 end.[/quote]

I really hope Jarmon comes back strong from his injury. I was very impressed with him. He can have a great career at DE.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

Heck I'd be tempted to take CJ Spiller. Would hate to be the team that passes on the next Chris Johnson

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=Lotus;667725]I think that that is the plan and I have no opposition...but for how long? Daniels is in his twilight.

There are whispers of Jarmon's being tried as a LB. If so, I hope that he fails badly at LB. Then they'll keep him at end where he belongs. He just needs some more weight and he can be a fine young 3-4 end.[/quote]I dunno if he's got the strength to do that, although if he has proper training, he could be adequate. Olshansky, for example, did a 505 lb bench press, which set a record for his college and he did 43 bench press reps at the combine, and we all know Daniels is a big-time weightlifter.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=SmootSmack;667729]Heck I'd be tempted to take CJ Spiller. Would hate to be the team that passes on the next Chris Johnson[/quote]

If it was between Berry, Suh, and McCoy...who would you take SS?

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;667733]I dunno if he's got the strength to do that, although if he has proper training, he could be adequate. Olshansky, for example, did a 505 lb bench press, which set a record for his college and he did 43 bench press reps at the combine, and we all know Daniels is a big-time weightlifter.[/quote]

Good points.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=PHazard;667710]Did you read what i wrote? I have faith in Landry as well. But my faith in him jumps a good 85% if playing at SS. Berry is a natural FS who makes excellent reads and knows how to play the ball. If we have a secondary that has Landry close to the Line delivering hits/run support, AND Eric Berry AND DeAngelo Hall bein ballhawks that would improve our defense/takeaways immediately. in a 3-4 Suh would be a DE, n in a 3-4, the DL take up as many blocks as they can so the LB can make plays. Its not an impact position. Berry would benefit us more so than Suh in our new Defense.[/quote]

I'm picking up what you're puttin down.....It does make sense. I dunno though my man. Its just gotta be Oline or Braford for me. Our D is pretty damn good as it is. Will it be better with Berry? Of course, but after watching last seasons Oline it was just gut wrenching. Its also hard to pick our 1st rounder without seeing what we do in FA. We all could have a different outlook come Monday.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=SmootSmack;667729]Heck I'd be tempted to take CJ Spiller. Would hate to be the team that passes on the next Chris Johnson[/quote]

You'll feel better in one or two years when Chris Johnson starts to break down. Running back early is the type of pick you make when you're close to a Super Bowl. For a team like us struggling in the trenches I'd say we need more grunt players. In fact I'd take Rolando McClain before I'd take Spiller. Heck I'd take McClain over Berry and McCoy.

The thing is if they don't like Clausen as you say and Okung is selected by the Chiefs at 2 via a trade then I think I'd like us to either be super cool and trade down, or draft Buluga. The only thing though that worries me about Buluga is his injury history with the thyroid condition and the shoulder problems. However from a talent perspective he's easily worth a top 10 pick. Maybe a small reach in this draft given the defensive talent at the top but I feel like he could quite possibly emerge as the best tackle of this draft, though Okung is obviously the most likely.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

I love it how Sam Bradford puts on 13lbs and all of a sudden now he's a lock to go first to the rams, and that we won't get him...Amazing what one mans opinion(schefter) does to the draft.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;667749]I love it how Sam Bradford puts on 13lbs and all of a sudden now he's a lock to go first to the rams, and that we won't get him...Amazing what one mans opinion(schefter) does to the draft.[/quote]

It's not just that. From a talent perspective he's easily worth the #1 pick. However aside from the shoulder injury that size makes people wonder how well he would take a beating at this level. Getting up to 236 makes him a tank by QB standards. In fact I think he put on a little more then the 14 pounds thats getting reported, given that he was listed as 214 during the season. Thats 22 pounds he's gained since the season most of it being muscle.

Basically Bradford took a concern and effectively neutralized it. Once they see him throw on his pro day then it will be very difficult for the Rams to pass on him.

Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1
 

Schefter reporting his personal conclusions based supposed inside info(he does have a good track record though) has no bearing on what they could measure of Bradford at the combine since Schefter reported his stuff before the combine started. His good track record is what leads people to believe him.
Schefter's basically saying "Based on so-and-so evidence, I believe the Rams will pick Sam Bradford at number 1".
What everyone's saying after Bradford's weight increase is that "he's not a twig that's going to be broken in half after all".