What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

All Rams, All The Time (1 Viewer)

Bob Magaw

Footballguy
hopefully not obliteration...

i'll expand on this later, but just a cursory overview to start...

the only place to go is up (actually, they could go 1-15 again or even 0-16 - they have become that bad, with historically poor organizational numbers in recent years... the rams have won six games since 2007... that is a month and a half for the colts :towelwave: )...

STL is on the clock...

GM devaney has stated that for now, it looks like the four players they are taking a closer look at, the two QBs (bradford and clausen) & the two DTs (suh & mccoy).

fairly recently, many early mocks featured suh atop the first round. increasingly, some mainstream media (schefter, clayton, mayock) have speculated that whether for good (bradford grades out as a franchise QB) or bad (STL better start developing a young prospect soon, etc) reasons, bradford will be the rams pick.

two key pieces to the puzzle yet to surface (& why this is still speculation and maybe informed conjecture at this point - by the likes of schefter, clayton, mayock, et al)... bradford needs to have his shoulder vetted by the STL medical team... & his pro day on 3-25.

casserly recently stated that among his sources (presumably many & high level, since he was himself in WAS & HOU), a consensus is emerging that bradford is a clearly superior prospect (IF he checks out medically) to clausen. bradford may be a better athlete and more accurate. clausen may have a stronger arm (not that bradford's is weak), but there have been some rumblings about whether his personality negatively impacts on his leadership (may not be well liked by some of his teammates?). clausen could be more "pro-ready" than bradford (groomed by weiss in an "NFL"-style offense & passing attack... bradford played a lot of spread offense, but not exclusively - the artlcle below alludes to this being a possible misnomer), but i question whether STL would rush either potential starter into immediate action, with unsolved OL & skill position questions... at the combine, it was noted that bradford's ability to roll out & throw decisively and accurately on the run could be a good fit for a WCO (rams OC shurmur was PHI QB coach?)...

as to DT... some have called suh a once-a-decade interior DL prospect (though mayock has said he isn't even his highest graded prospect in this draft)

maybe one way to parse the QB vs. DT question...

with so much money at stake, and more importantly, the franchise's dire need for a playmaker, a difference maker, & a face of the franchise, a bad pick could be equally devastating whether on offense or defense.

yet if STL nails a high pick (for a change), the upside to a franchise QB could far outweigh the benefits that would accrue even from a top 5 DT...

TEAM NEEDS

QB, RB (back up - good with starter jackson), WR (1-2 starters - avery inconsistent and seemed to regress, but that could easily be attributed to OL injuries and erratic, incompetent QB play?), TE, OL (various - inside & outside)

DL (DE & DT), LB (probably WLB & SLB), probably DB (better at safety if RFA atogwe remains... bartell played better in '08 than '09, the team is reportedly high on '09 3rd rounder bradley fletcher, & said he is recovering nicely from injury (knee?)... they could use an upgrade at nickle CB)

ST (upgrade in return game... have they had a dangerous KR artist since world class sprinter ron brown (?)... az-hakim was dangerous punt returner (they got dante hall past his prime - TIME)

at nearly every position across the board, the rams could use better talent for starters & depth, better vets and developmental types, etc. rare positions of strength... jackson at RB, brown at center, MLB laurinaitis, FS atogwe... to steal a line from the coen bros. barton fink... throw a rock at the rams roster, and you probably WON'T hit a star...

recent article from local team reporter...

http://www.ramsrule.com/herd/read.php?5,29...29808#msg-29808

Quarterbacks Vie for Top Spot

Saturday, February 27, 2010

By Nick Wagoner

Senior Writer

INDIANAPOLIS – There is, perhaps, no position in team sports that carries with it the burden and demands of NFL quarterback.

Aside from head coach, it’s probably the most pressure-packed position you will find. You’re the first to get blame when you lose and the first to get glory when you win.

So it’s merely stating the obvious to say that identifying the player you want to play quarterback for the long term future of your franchise comes with an inherent amount of pressure in itself.

While it’s far from certain at which point the Rams will look for that person, it’s the job of general manager Billy Devaney, coach Steve Spagnuolo and their respective staffs to do everything possible to figure out who that person will be when the time comes.

Devaney has been in the personnel game for a long time and has seen plenty in that time. So, what will he be looking for when he begins talking to prospects to fill that role for the future of the Rams?

“Kind of in my history with quarterbacks, the guys that I have been involved with that didn’t pan out, (it’s) the intangibles for me,” Devaney said. “I have come full circle. If you don’t have the intangible to play that position…to me the physical skills are almost the easy part for these kids. There’s so much that goes into being a quarterback in the NFL that the work ethic you have to have, the leadership, the time that you put in, the media scrutiny, if you can’t handle all of that stuff you are going to have a hard time performing on the field. It’s the intangibles as much as anything.”

In this year’s draft class, the Rams could well have their pick of the litter when they make the choice on who the next quarterback could be. As it stands, two prospects – Oklahoma’s Sam Bradford and Notre Dame’s Jimmy Clausen – stand above the rest with Texas signal caller Colt McCoy considered by many to be next in line.

As Devaney points out, those players wouldn’t be regarded as highly as they are if they didn’t have the physical tools to succeed. That much, we know.

What remains to be seen is how they will separate from one another in three areas where each must answer some important questions.

INJURY ISSUES

After putting together impressive college careers, Bradford, Clausen and McCoy’s college careers each ended with an ailment that has teams left waiting for the opportunity to see them throw in person.

More than any other player in the draft, Bradford probably has the most to prove in terms of showing he’s healthy.

Bradford suffered a grade three separation of his right (throwing) shoulder early in the season, costing him the rest of his junior year and preventing him from making a run at repeating as Heisman Trophy winner.

After missing the bulk of the season, Bradford had Dr. James Andrews perform surgery to reconstruct the AC joint in his shoulder. While he’s been training and has recently started throwing 20 to 40 yard routes with as much effort as possible, he hasn’t been able to throw in front of teams yet and won’t until his March 25th pro day in Norman.

In the meantime, he’s packed on about 12 pounds to get to 236 and impress scouts with his newfound frame. That will be the ultimate test for Bradford and any team interested.

“It’s extremely important,” Bradford said. “Obviously it will be the first time that I have been with pro scouts since they have seen me play when I got injured. I think everyone is really anxious to see my arm and how it looks after surgery.”

Clausen’s injury isn’t as serious. He suffered what was deemed turf toe early in the season but was later revealed as torn ligaments in his right big toe. Clausen had surgery on the toe and has spent the offseason recovering from it.

Like Bradford, that injury has kept Clausen from throwing in front of scouts or doing much in the way of running. His pro day is set for April 9 and will also be an important test.

“You have to see a quarterback live,” Devaney said. “You can’t judge arm strength off of tape. But we have seen a bigger body of work on Clausen because he played all the games this year and was unbelievably impressive with his accuracy and all. We just want to look at arm strength that you can’t judge all the time on looking at tape.”

McCoy suffered a nerve injury in the BCS championship game and also won’t be throwing at the combine. He’s looking forward to returning to throw for scouts at his pro day in Austin on March 31.

“My shoulder is doing great,” McCoy said. “I’m way ahead of schedule. It’s unfortunate I’m not going to throw here, I’m bummed out, I would love to get out there and compete, I’d love to get out there and throw. But it’s healing up great, I’m throwing every day. I’m on a strict routine, but I’m confident that everything is going well and I’ll be 100 percent ready to go in a couple weeks.”

SYSTEM ANALYSIS

Maybe the hardest part of evaluating the actual tangible, on field performance of college quarterbacks comes about because of the proliferation of spread offenses in the college game.

Of the three, only Clausen comes from a true pro style offense, learning under the guidance of former Notre Dame coach Charlie Weis, who was the offensive coordinator for Tom Brady and the Patriots before that.

“That’s why I went to Notre Dome was because it could best replicate what it would be like as a NFL rookie in the National Football League,” Clausen said. “That progression went from freshman year to sophomore year to my junior year this past season what it’s going to be like and I just want to jump from wherever I was this year to wherever I am going to be and help my team win games.”

McCoy is the only of the trio that spent his college career in a true spread offense. In his four years as starter, McCoy spent the first two years under center about 30 percent of the time. He didn’t spend a whole lot of time taking snaps under center in his final two years. But he doesn’t view that as a hindrance to his ability to play in the NFL.

“I realize that's something I really need to work on because the last two years we didn't spend that much time underneath center,” McCoy said. “We ran some play action out of it, but that's about it. We played to our personnel, we played with what we had and we won a lot of games. But playing underneath the center is not foreign to me. The good thing with my shoulder after the game for about three weeks I wasn't able to throw, so I committed myself to working on my feet, working on my drops, my play-action drops. My feet are going to be perfectly fine.”

Contrary to popular belief, Bradford didn’t play in a spread-exclusive offense. In fact, the Sooners’ set was essentially a hybrid offense in which he was asked to work out of the shotgun and under center.

It’s one perception that seems to annoy the mostly unflappable Bradford.

“I think people have this misconception if you play in the spread, you play in the shotgun that you don’t know how to take a drop,” Bradford said. “It’s just a shorter drop. When you are in the gun, you still take a three step drop. At Oklahoma at practice every day, our first drops were under center. Our coach made us take drops under center. We threw two out routes, the first was under center, the second was in the gun. I am very comfortable with being under center. It’s something I have done since I have been in college going back to high school. It’s nothing new to me.”

LEVELS OF LEADERSHIP

Without question, the one trait shared by the top quarterbacks in the league, the Peyton Mannings’, Drew Brees’ and Tom Bradys’ of the NFL is their unquestioned “It Factor” that allows them to lead their teams with an iron fist.

Those players spend obscene amounts of time studying film and aren’t afraid to speak up if a teammates doesn’t put in the effort to win on Sundays.

“I think what you do is you assess the team that have been successful lately it seems to me those leadership type of guys, the guys who can get the job done in a pinch and certainly all the other things that go along with it,” Spagnuolo said. “(You obviously want) a guy that can throw the football and has all the physical qualities. But leadership to me is really important at that particular position.”

Among this year’s draft prospects, this is one area that seems to be most dominated by Florida’s Tim Tebow who by all accounts has intangibles to spare. Bradford and McCoy are thought of in similar ways.

Oklahoma tackle Trent Williams saw up close the type of leader and player Bradford can be.

“I honestly think he's one of the best — best in my class and hopefully he can be one of the best of the era,” Williams said. “Because he has it all: smarts, accuracy. I mean, anything you want in a quarterback, Sam has.”

Bradford isn’t necessarily a rah rah type guy but that doesn’t mean he’s afraid to express himself if someone is out of line.

“I think I am a great leader,” Bradford said. “I think if you ask any of my teammates that played with me at Oklahoma, they would tell you I was one of the leaders on our team. I can be vocal; I think a lot of people question that. But they don’t see our practices; they don’t see what I do in our locker room. I am vocal; I will get after guys when I need to. I also like to lead by example and that’s something I believe in. If you don’t practice what you preach, no one is going to follow you. I believe I have all the different leadership styles you need.”

McCoy drew similar rave reviews for his work in leading the Longhorns. As a four-year starter at a major program like Texas, it could have been especially hard for McCoy to take the reins as he followed the footsteps of Vince Young.

“Leadership is a tough word,” McCoy said. “It's hard to talk about. A lot of guys can say things about it, but can't back it up. God gave me the ability and opportunity to play for four years at Texas which was a dream for me. I learned a lot of lessons on leadership through those four years. My freshman year, I stood in the huddle with five guys who had just won the national championship and just played with Vince Young. You can imagine what that's like in spring ball trying to call a play in front of them. And they're like, I'm not listening to you, dude. You're a freshman.' Overcoming that and where I am today, a lot of leadership lessons learned and a lot of lessons that will carry on into the NFL”

Despite his leadership role at Notre Dame, the perception around the draft is that Clausen is lacking in the intangibles department. Labeled by some as cocky or arrogant, people wonder if Clausen can successfully lead a team.

Notre Dame receiver Golden Tate disputes that after spending his college career in a huddle with Clausen.

“I think he was a great leader,” Tate said. “He’s really consistent. Everyday he showed up to work. Sick, hurt, we got the same Jimmy. He did a great job keeping the team together. Overall I think Jimmy did a great job.”

For his part, Clausen believes that anyone playing quarterback at a high profile school like Notre Dame is going to automatically face the haters. And though Clausen admits that he did plenty of growing up and maturing in his time in South Bend, he does believe all the teams need to do is get to know him to see that those perceptions are incorrect.

“There have also been adverse times that I have had to overcome, different situations I have been through that I realized being in the fish bowl at Notre Dame and being the quarterback at Notre Dame, you have to act in a certain way and it has helped me,” Clausen said. “I’m going to become the face of the franchise somewhere and being at Notre Dame will definitely help me do that.”

DECISION DAY

According to most draft analysts and pundits, Bradford is the highest rated of the quarterbacks with Clausen trailing behind and McCoy a notch below and likely second-round draft choice.

Between now and April’s NFL Draft, all three will have to prove themselves healthy and capable of throwing the ball at a NFL level. They’ll need to wow teams with their interview skills and their knowledge and passion for the game.

Bradford must show that his shoulder is fine and he can make all of the NFL throws. Clausen must prove he has the leadership skills that go with his undeniable physical talents. And McCoy must find a way to elevate his status to even enter the first-round conversation with Bradford and Clausen.

Because ultimately, the quarterback of the football team, especially one drafted first overall, does more than take the snaps, hand the ball off and throw it.

“When you are the first pick in the draft, there’s something about that regardless of position,” Devaney said. “That follows you forever. I think whoever we take with the first pick that becomes in our mind part of the foundation but out there yeah, he would probably be the face of the franchise.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Count me on the Bradford bandwagon & also think it's the no brainer pick for the franchise. Thought he was an elite QB prospect pre-injury, unless he turns into Chad Pennington as a result [nothing against Chad, just don't think you spend #1 on that], I expect him to be at the Pro Bowl in the future.

The Rams desperately desperately need a face of the franchise & someone to sell tickets in the future. I think Bradford can be that guy. Suh, no matter how his career turns out, will never be that guy.

 
Count me on the Bradford bandwagon & also think it's the no brainer pick for the franchise. Thought he was an elite QB prospect pre-injury, unless he turns into Chad Pennington as a result [nothing against Chad, just don't think you spend #1 on that], I expect him to be at the Pro Bowl in the future.

The Rams desperately desperately need a face of the franchise & someone to sell tickets in the future. I think Bradford can be that guy. Suh, no matter how his career turns out, will never be that guy.
same reporter as in OP, clausen and bradford combine interviews (i haven't read clausen's yet, but i was very impressed with bradford)... with the caveat/proviso IF he checks out medically, i will be disappointed if they don't draft bradford...

http://www.ramsrule.com/herd/read.php?5,29...29739#msg-29739

Catching Up with Notre Dame QB Jimmy Clausen

Posted >Sat, February 27, 2010 04:00

by Nick Wagoner

INDIANAPOLIS -

- Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen has plenty of people wondering how he fits in the NFL because of the prominent perception that he isn't a capable leader. He faced plenty of questions about that on Saturday and held up well to the scrutiny.

- Clausen also discussed his recovery from toe surgery and the ways that coming from Charlie Weis' pro style offense should help him adjust to the NFL.

(What kind of quarterback coach is Charlie Weis?)

"He's a great quarterback coach, one of the best I've ever had. He's probably the smartest coach I've ever been around. Coach Weiss definitely knows what he's doing. He puts me in a great position to go out there and just play football and make plays."

(What is the update on your injury?)

"I hurt it the third game of the season in the second quarter against Michigan State. I tore two ligaments in that game and I played the rest of the season taking painkillers for every single game. At the end of the season I got another MRI. From playing on the two torn tendons, my sesamoid bones in my toe retracted about one centimeter. So Dr. Mark Myerson out of Baltimore had to reattach the tendons and put two pins in there to hold those tendons and he also had to move those sesamoid bones back up.

(Which foot?)

"It's my right big toe."

(Do you have any regrets playing through the season with that injury?)

"All they told me was that it was turf toe. So I just had to gut it out for my team and went out there each and every game and tried to give it my best."

(How much do you think you've matured at Notre Dame and how do you respond to your critics?)

"I've grown tremendously since I came into Notre Dame. I came in early as a senior. I came out early to Notre Dame, got in there in January, and tried to get a head start on my college career. There have been some ups and downs, a lot of lessons I've learned through that time. I overcame a lot of adversity during my past three years at Notre Dame. It's just been the greatest time of my life and I've learned some of the greatest experiences that I could. Just being away from my home and family in California has definitely changed me as a person."

(Do you think you're ready to lead an NFL team?)

"I think I'm ready. That's one of the reasons why I went to Notre Dame; to best replicate what it was going to be like playing big-time football in the NFL as a rookie. There's obviously been history shown that a lot of quarterbacks that come into their rookie season in the NFL have struggled. I kind of went through that at Notre Dame. I struggled my first year, got a little better my second year and made a drastic change my junior year in college."

(What kind of feedback have you gotten about your injury?)

"I went through that process yesterday and it took quite a bit of time. They said, 'It looks really good and it's healing.' They told me just to take my time and not push it too much."

(Are you on schedule to workout in South Bend, Ind. the first week of April?)

"Yeah, that's what I'm shooting for and that's when the doctor said I'll be ready. My scheduled date is April 9 at Notre Dame, to have my pro day."

(Will you be able to fully workout at the point?)

"Yes."

(How do you react to people who doubt your abilities to be a leader?)

"You know, to be honest, some of the people that say those things just don't know me as a person. A lot of people don't really know me as a person. That's why I was so excited to come here, talk to all the coaches and the GM and owners - so they get a feel for me as a person. Being at Notre Dame, the quarterback and the head coach get all the credit when things go right and get a lot of blame when things go wrong. It's a tough situation being in a fishbowl at Notre Dame. Like I said, I was so excited to come out here and just to meet a bunch of the guys, I know a lot of the guys that are out here working out, just to meet those coaches and for them to get a feel for me as a person."

(Do you feel capable of being the No. 1 overall pick and is that a goal?)

"If that's the team that wants to pick me. I just want to go somewhere where they want me as a person and a player, to go to that organization and help them win games. That's all I'm about. I'm about going there and trying to make my team better. Whether it's being on the practice squad, helping the defense, whether it's being the staring quarterback - that's a coach's decision. My goal is just to go in, whoever drafts me, go in there and learn the playbook as quick as I can and get out there and do everything I can to help the team win."

(How much does being in that fish bowl at Notre Dame prepare you for what’s ahead in the NFL?)

That’s why I went to Notre Dome was because it could best replicate what it would be like as a NFL rookie in the National Football League. That progression went from freshman year to sophomore year to my junior year this past season what it’s going to be like and I just want to jump from whatever I was this year to wherever I am going to be and help my team win games.

(What are the inaccurate perceptions about you out there?)

Some people say I am cocky, I am arrogant, I am not a good leader, I am not a good teammate. I think the people out there saying those things really don’t know me as a person. I am a humble kid. I love my teammates, have guys over to my house. During days off, I watch a lot of film with the receivers. During the offseason, have a bunch of my guys come back to work out with me and stay at my house with my family. Those are just some of the things I like to do. I am a fun kid and I have had to overcome adversity at notre Dame and it has made me a better person and a better player.

(Do you think you need to overcome those perceptions in the eyes of NFL decision makers?)

I think they just want to see me up close and personal, get a feel for me as a person. I think that’s the biggest thing they want to see.

(Do you think that leadership issue will come up when you talk to teams or do you think they are cognizant of the perceptions that are out there?)

I think they are cognizant of the perceptions out there and to be honest, I am just going in there and talking to them about some of the questions they have for me and just getting to know them and for them to get to know me as well.

(Do you think it’s unfair that the leadership issue is a question?)

That comes with the territory of being the quarterback at Notre Dame. That’s just the way it is. Just going in to the meetings with the coaches and GM’s I like it. I like for them to get to know me as a person just one on one.

(You play general manager: Who do you take Jimmy Clausen or Sam Bradford?)

You’d have to ask a general manager that question.

(What do you think you bring to the table as a quarterback?)

I would say some of my strengths are taking care of the football, my accuracy, playing under center in a pro style offense under coach Weis for the past three years, my durability, playing when I’m hurt and bringing my team back in the fourth quarter. I think those are some of the things that are my biggest things.

(What about your weaknesses?)

The biggest thing I want to do is become more of a gym rat in the film room. Being in college you only have a certain amount of hours to watch tape and go in there with your team and watch tape with them. You always hear guys like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are always in the film room watching tape. That’s what I want to do. It’s my profession now and that’s what I want to be. I want to be a gym rat in the film room and do everything I can to help the team win.

(How have you dealt with the outside perceptions?)

I knew Notre Dame was really big but until I got there and had to deal with it a little bit it was a lot bigger than I thought. There was ups and downs like I thought but I have definitely learned from some of the mistakes I made and had to overcome adversity. I am a better person and player for that.

(What was your support system to help through that?)

I talked to my family. My family is very supportive of me. Coach Weis was also a big influence. That’s the reason I went to Notre Dame. He’s a great guy. Not a lot of people really know him but he loves his family to death and loves his players to death and he treats me like his son Charlie Jr. He’s a family guy and that’s what I love about him.

(How much do you think your experience at Notre Dame will help you with a rebuilding team?)

It’s definitely going to help me. Going through adversity, being 3-9 my first year at Notre Dame, going 6-6 or 7-6 the next year and just progressively getting better as a quarterback and as a team. We were really young my freshman season and we got better and I think we made drastic changes this last season.

(Do you think those misconceptions were misconceptions or did you change?)

I think the misperceptions in a sense that people talked about my leadership skills and different things like that. But there have also been adverse times that I have had to overcome, different situations I have been through that I realized being in the fish bowl at Notre Dame and being the quarterback at Notre Dame, you have to act in a certain way and it has helped me. I’m going to become the face of the franchise somewhere and being at Notre Dame will definitely help me do that.

Catching Up with Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford

Posted >Sat, February 27, 2010 02:20

by Nick Wagoner

INDIANAPOLIS -

- Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford addressed the media today and took on all questions about his surgically-repaired shoulder, his potential draft status and where he fits at the NFL level.

- Bradford is set to meet with the Rams tonight in the first of what figures to be a long getting-to-know-you process. I'll have a story on the Bradford vs. Clausen debate later tonight but for now, here's the bulk of Bradford's interview...

(What are you hearing about your health status?)

Obviously there are a lot of questions about my shoulder. I think it checked out really well yesterday when I went to all of the team physicals. No one found anything they weren’t expecting to find. I am in a great rehab program right now. My throwing sessions are really starting to pick up in intensity. My last throwing session was over 100 throws. My arm feels great after I throw, it hasn’t been sore yet. So it feels really good and I am really happy with where it’s at.

(Are they testing your range of motion or stretching out the arm at all?)

A little bit of both. They are looking for strength and for how much range of motion I have.

(How long were you at hospital yesterday?)

I was there for a while, a couple hours.

(What exactly was surgery on the shoulder?)

It was a reconstruction of the AC joint. They just went in with like a nylon braid and put the clavicle back in place and pretty much re-secured the joint.

(Do you second guess yourself at all for trying to come back after the first injury?)

No. I don’t second guess that decision at all. If I wouldn’t have tried to come back, there’s no way I could have lived with that decision. Everyone we talked to at the time said that I could come back and play. No one thought I needed surgery after the first injury so I don’t think I made a wrong decision at all with that.

(When is your pro day?)

March 25. Yes.

(How important will that be?)

It’s extremely important. Obviously it will be the first time that I have been with pro scouts since they have seen me play when I got injured. I think everyone is really anxious to see my arm and how it looks after surgery.

(How bad was the shoulder and did you really need the surgery?)

It was a grade three separation and from what I have heard from doctors after the second time, for my long term health if I wanted to continue playing football and get stronger in the weight room I needed to have the surgery.

(How important is it to you to be No. 1?)

I think everyone dreams about being No. 1. I think through this process I have been preparing myself and show those teams everything I have. It’s not up to me at the end of the day, it’s up to them. I am really not worried about what I can’t control.

(Do you feel like you’re the best quarterback in the draft?)

To be honest, I haven’t seen all the quarterbacks play. I am not going to compare myself to them. I know that I am a good player. I have confidence in my ability and I feel like when teams see me throw on the 25th they will really see what they are getting.

(Was it important for you to put some weight on before coming here?)

Definitely. That’s something, especially coming back from the injury I wanted to get in the weight room and put some weight on. I came in at a good weight yesterday. There were some questions about my weight last year. People thought I was too small to come out so I won’t have to answer any of those questions this year and it’s something I have put a lot of work into.

(How much weight have you put on?)

Since the last time I played, I have probably put on about 12 pounds.

(what was your height and weight?)

Yesterday I was 6’4, 236.

(What have teams told you about what they like about you or your strengths?)

They usually don’t tell you. They ask you those questions. So, I am still trying to get a feel for it. I’m sure once I get picked, they will tell me what they feel like I do well and what I need to improve on.

(How often are you throwing right now?)

I throw every other day. That’s the schedule I am on right now. When I get back from the combine I am hoping to finish my rehab schedule and get to throw every day.

(What kind of throwing have you been doing?)

They are 20-40 yards and I am putting as much as I can on it. I feel like if you want to get your arm stronger that’s what you have got to do. It’s gotten stronger every time I have thrown and it really feels good right now. No discomfort.

(What do you think you bring to the table in terms of leadership?)

I think I am a great leader. I think if you ask any of my teammates that played with me at Oklahoma, they would tell you I was one of the leaders on our team. I can be vocal, I think a lot of people question that. But they don’t see our practices, they don’t see what I do in our locker room. I am vocal, I will get after guys when I need to. I also like to lead by example and that’s something I believe in. If you don’t practice what you preach, no one is going to follow you. I believe I have all the different leadership styles you need to be a good leader.

(How do you think you’d fit in a West Coast offense?)

I feel like my style can adapt to any system. I think people will look at what we did last year at Oklahoma and just see a spread offense but if you look at my first year at Oklahoma we were under center a lot. I believe it was 50/50 that we were in a two-back pro style set. I feel like I have the skills to really adapt to any system.

(What do you expect in meeting with Rams tonight?)

I expect it to be like all the other meetings. I am sure they will ask me some questions about myself, my background. I am sure they will turn on the tape, watch some of the things I have done at Oklahoma and try to figure out how I process things. I don’t think it will be any different than any of my meetings with other teams.

(Will you tell them the Peyton Manning line about making them pay if they don’t draft you?)

I don’t know. I haven’t thought that far ahead yet.

(When you got hurt, it seemed like you might have lost your chance to be the No. 1 pick, did you think about that at all?)

I never really felt that way. I know a lot of people thought that but nothing changed the player I was. Just because I got hurt doesn’t change anything I have done in the past. It doesn’t change my work ethic. I know I had to work that much harder to get myself back in the position to have that opportunity but I feel like I have worked extremely hard. but it’s not up to me, I don’t get to pick, I know I am going to get stronger, put on a good show and show everyone what I have.

(What are the characteristics of being a quarterback that you have that makes you a contender for this top pick?)

I think if you look at everything I have done at Oklahoma not only on the field but off the field, the things I am involved with, I think a lot of times people look at what you say, how you handle press conferences and obviously that’s a big part but I think if you really take a look and see how I interact with people on a daily basis, the things I do in my personal life, I think you will see that I put the effort in to everything. Academics is something I put a lot of effort into. I really think everything I do, I give my best and I think I am going to do my best for whatever team takes me.

(Have you reached out to Matt Ryan or Matthew Stafford to help you through this process?)

I haven’t reached out to those guys yet. I think it’s something I definitely will do when I get farther along in the process, especially the closer the draft comes and the closer I get to entering rookie camp just to understand what it’s going to be like. I can learn a lot from them just because they have been through this process before.

(What are your thoughts on Ndamukong Suh?)

He’s a great player. We saw him this year. I was on the sideline for that game so I got to watch him. He’s a great player but I think we have a great defensive tackle at Oklahoma as well. I think Gerald McCoy is a great player too so I wouldn’t rule that out.

(Do you talk to McCoy about being the top pick?)

No. I just saw Gerald for the first time last night. We don’t talk about that stuff. I wish Gerald the best, he wishes me the best. We are going to be happy for each other no matter what happens.

(How much do you work on taking snaps under center in the offseason?)

Yeah. I think people have this misconception if you play in the spread, you play in the shotgun that you don’t know how to take a drop. It’s just a shorter drop. When you are in the gun, you still take a three step drop. At Oklahoma at practice every day, our first drops were under center. Our coach made us take drops under center. We threw two out routes, the first was under center, the second was in the gun. I am very comfortable with being under center. It’s something I have done since I have been in college going back to high school. It’s nothing new to me.

(What do you tell teams are your greatest assets?)

I think I am extremely accurate. I think you have to be to be successful as a quarterback. You can be smart, make all the right reads but if you can’t deliver the ball you are not going to be successful. I think I have great feet. I make a lot of athletic throws. I am able to throw on the run really well. I have a great presence in the pocket. I am able to stand in there and deliver the ball under pressure while taking the hit. I am a competitor. I love to compete, I love to win. I have loved to win since I was little and that’s not going to change.

(How do you feel about being a face of the franchise wherever you go?)

I really don’t think I would necessarily be the face of the franchise. It’s still a team game. There are a bunch of guys who people look to when they think of that franchise. If people want to put that on me, it’s something I will embrace and I’m sure I will have to grow into it but I will learn the ropes just like I did when I was at Oklahoma.

(Can you take us through the play you were hurt on against BYU?)

Yeah, they brought pressure from the backside and I tried to roll out and the guy just wrapped me up and unfortunately he landed on me and I landed on my right shoulder and I ended up separating my shoulder.

(Have you talked to Alex Smith about that surgery?)

Yeah, I actually talked to him before I had surgery. I know he has the same procedure by Dr. Andrews. He just told me what to expect from the rehab standpoint and what he went through so I knew what to expect.

(What do you think you gained by coming back?)

Mentally, I think I made leaps and bounds. Just another year in school, it was another year to mature on and off the field. When I got hurt, you step away from the game, you look at the offense from a different perspective and I think I was able to do that. Sometimes when you are on the field you are going so fast that when a coach calls a play you just run it then afterwards look back on it and wonder why did we run that? But when you are on the sideline and you see the call come in, you are really able to slow things down and really understand why we are calling that on certain defensive looks. SO I think mentally I gained a lot from this year.

(Does your arm feel strong right now?)

Yes. I think Dr. Andrews is extremely happy with it. He feels like I am ahead of schedule right now. The velocity I am putting on the ball and some of the throws I am able to make right now, I feel like with another month’s work, I will be able to make all the throws I was able to make before with probably some more arm strength than I had before.

(the Rams have said they’d like you to see an independent doctor in addition to their doctors and Dr. Andrews. Are you OK with that?)

Yeah, that’s fine. I have nothing to hide. My shoulder is fine. They can get whoever they want to to look at it. I don’t think it’s going to change. They are going to see that it’s strong, it’s healthy, it’s better than ever.

(Would you be OK with going to a rebuilding team?)

I think it’s a great opportunity. To have the opportunity to play for a team in the NFL whether it’s rebuilding or successful, to be part of an organization and getting to play on Sundays is something I really look forwar (? transcription ends here, on the board i copied this from)...

* cross-pollinating from the adam schefter taking bets thread (see below)... a nice breakdown of bradford's strengths, lifted from my go to rams homer board site (with highlights of the florida BCS game)... bradford shouldn't be too controversial as the #1 overall pick, as he reportedly would have been in the conversation in 2009, if he had opted to go out...

i think devaney recently alluded to why you might take potentially good/great QB over potentially dominant DT... QB touches the ball every play...

in fairness, a great DT can have ripple through effect that can make every level of the defense better... but not too many have this effect every play... conversely, sometimes a QB just hands off... but the THREAT of a dangerous QB can help the run game a lot...

no doubt suh would improve the run defense (the sisters of mercy would help the rams run defense)... but will he be the catalyst that will turn STL DL into the fearsome foursome 2.0 pass rush... do they have the weapons that will capitalize and leverage a potentially elite interior DL presence? long is promising but may never be dominant (maybe more grant wistrom than patrick kerney, both who he has been compared to)... on other side, they have older players (maybe little?, james hall) far closer to the end than the beginning of their career. at the other DT, carriker has been a medical disappointment, and they don't have a special player... suh (or mccoy) would probably see double teams, and would be easier for stronger, quicker, more talented, experienced & technically sound NFL OL (compared to college) to neutralize... at least at first... of course they could add pieces in future seasons... but if they took suh, they would have taken the #1 & #2 overall pick at DL in two of the last three years (carriker was also taken in the top half of the first round in his class)...

a chronicle of the rams recent draft troubles has more horrifying moments than a rob zombie double feature... damione lewis and jimmy kennedy were high profile 1st round DL/DT unmitigated disasters (STL is to DL what DET is to WRs) that helped grease the skids from the GSOT apex, super bowl years now about a decade ago... allowing kurt warner, london fletcher, RT fred miller, dre bly, etc. to get away didn't help - not to mention martz picks like trung canidate, eric crouch, etc, and recent, though pre-devaney/spagnuolo, unneeded character risks on the likes of wroten, byrd, incognito, none of which are on the team... more blown high picks on players like leonard and klopfenstein that are gone or have been marginalized... tye hill another massive top half of the 1st bust on defense no longer with the team - they could have actually taken jay cutler or haloti ngata there... alex barron another 1st rounder that hasn't exactly lit the league on fire, and may not figure in the team's long range plans...

you don't have to look far to see why and how the rams have stumbled on field so catastrophically the past half decade or so... a litany of disastrous, heinous drafts from the martz/linehan & zygmunt/shaw legacy... it is painful to compare their track record and history to the better ownership groups/front offices/coaching staffs/scouting departments around the league, like PIT, IND, NE, SD, PHI, etc.

maybe if bradford is the real deal, rams fans will look back at the 2010 draft as a turning point in their fortunes for the NEXT decade (did yogi berra say predicting is hard - especially when it involves the future? :blackdot: )...

* bradford highlights/breakdown...

http://www.ramsrule.com/herd/read.php?5,29...29348#msg-29348

 
Last edited by a moderator:
interestingly, just read (didn't verify) the rams haven't taken a 1st round QB in STL or LA since the merger...

jim everret was taken 3rd overall (?) by the oilers, and acquired in a trade. tony banks was a second rounder.

bill munson in '64 (?), nearly a half a CENTURY ago... its been a long time waterfield/van brocklin (they did unearth UFA warner)... :confused:

* a scout is cited on the suh/bradford debate...

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2010/2/22/132...uts-perspective

A scout's perspective

by CaliRamMan on Feb 22, 2010 10:17 PM CST 14 comments

A good read from a former scout, Daniel Jeremiah. He breaks down several questions, especially ones that have been flying all over the place on this site. When discussing the best overall player in the draft, check out what he has to say about Mr. Suh:

I think he can play anywhere. That’s what I like so much about him. He could play inside at nose, he could be a 3-technique, he could play end if you needed him too. If you wanted to get real big on first down, you could line him up at end and have a monster end. I think his versatility fits into any defense.

Where does he rank the big guy:

He’s the best interior defensive lineman I have graded in six years. Last year, I was in Cleveland and we were going to have a top five pick and I went all over the country to do all the top players and he was my top player assuming he would have came out last year. He was my top player in last year’s draft.

What do you hve to say about Sam Bradford?

The only thing that would deter me from (Suh) that is if Sam Bradford checked out 100 percent healthy and your doctors were OK with durability concerns and you feel like he fits perfectly with what you do. Because if you don’t have a quarterback, that has to weigh into it. But that’s the only other option.

I liked Bradford because of the accuracy. In terms of where he would have gone with those other guys, I think he would very much have been in the discussion with Stafford and Sanchez and been a for sure top 10 pick and maybe threatened to be the first pick.

How about Mr. Clausen?

I need to do more (tape watching) on him. I’ve seen like two games. I need to see more. I need to watch some more tape on him. The problem I have on him is that his completion percentage is really high so a lot of times people confuse that with accuracy. But a lot of times, his ball placement was off, he puts the ball on the wrong shoulder. His footwork, he needs to clean that up, definitely.

** rob rang on bradford's presence during the interview... for the record, he would take suh #1, but bradford's leadership and intangibles have impressed him, and he understands why his momentum is building...

http://rob-rang.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/bl...t;entry20243613

Undefinable "it?" Bradford has it

Posted on: February 27, 2010 3:05 pmScore: 147Log-in to rate:Log-in to rate: Log-in to rate: Moments after being underwhelmed by Notre Dame's Jimmy Clausen, I was surprised by how impressive Sam Bradford was in person.

First off, while I felt that Jimmy Clausen looked even smaller than his measured 6-2, 222 he measured in for scouts yesterday, Bradford looked all of 6-4, 236 pounds. He had gained obvious muscle mass in his upper body.

And while not necessarily as comfortable in the spotlight as Mark Sanchez or Matt Stafford were last year, there was no doubt that the former Heisman winner owned the media room with a confidence and ease that will be very attractive to teams.

One of the real questions scouts had about Sam Bradford was his leadership. He appeared so quiet and reserved in prior interviews that I, too, wondered if he had the fire to lead. I had mentioned in a previous blog post about the undefinable "it" that scouts look for at the quarterback position -- a combination of charisma, poise and intelligence.

I continue to believe that Nebraska DT Ndamukong Suh is the best and safest player in this draft. He is the player I'd take with the first pick.

However...

Assuming that Bradford can prove his health and is as impressive on his March 25 Pro Day as I expect him to be, I can certainly understand why he's generating momentum to be the No. 1 overall pick.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
from frank coyle's draft insiders... a draft round table organized by GBNs colin lindsay that includes coyle, russ lande and scott wright weighs in on the top of the draft, and merit of DT vs. QB (suh/mccoy, bradford/clausen)...

http://www.draftinsiders.com/

NFL Draft 2010 Panel of Scouts

Mon, 02/22/2010 - 08:40 — Frank Coyle

NFL Draft Prospects.NFL Analysts Discuss Hot Topics

Photo - DT Nda Suh - Nebraska

Colin Lindsay of Great Blue North Report has been a longtime friend and NFL Draft analyst with a website at www.gbnreport.com It is one of the best and long standing web sites available with year round NFL and college football coverage. Lindsay has assembled a group of NFL Draft analysts to get their opinions of the upcoming NFL Draft prior to the NFL Combine that begins later this week. The NFL Draft 2010 is exactly two months away, however, there is still plenty of scouting and debate before the first picks come off the board on April 22nd.

With that in mind, he has asked several of the most pressing questions to a panel of NFL Draft experts including veteran draft analyst Frank Coyle of DraftInsiders.com who is in its 19th year; veteran draft analyst Jerry Jones, whose Drugstore List is now in its 33rd year of publication; former NFL scout Russ Lande, aka GM jr., who also currently has a weekly mock draft at The Sporting News; and Scott Wright whose NFL Draft Countdown is one of the most popular draft sites out there. Here's what the panel said about who is the #1 prospect overall; the top QB, as well as who is up and who is down among other questions.

The first question to the panel was who IS the #1 prospect for the 2010 draft, Nebraska DT Ndamukong Suh, who has been the consensus top guy for seemingly forever, fellow DT Gerald McCoy of Oklahoma who reportedly is pushing Suh on several boards at least in the media, or someone else:

Frank Coyle is unequivocal that Suh is still the #1 guy this year. Indeed, Coyle says that Suh “has been my #1 pro prospect since August 2009. I expect him to impress at the NFL Combine and solidify that ranking. He is a consistently dominant tackle who takes every defender’s level of play up a notch. He has a chance to be an annual Pro Bowl defender. McCoy is a blue chip prospect in his own right who is explosive and has rare speed for an interior defender” who is currently #2 on Coyle’s list. For his part, Jerry Jones, not to be confused with the guy who runs that team in the middle of Texas, is also pretty definitive in rating Suh the top prospect overall and suggests that anyone with any doubts simply re-watch the tape of the Big XII championship game between Nebraska and Texas which Suh dominated. Wright also gives “a slight edge to Suh”, but figures that the former Husker and McCoy are “basically 1A and 1B. Either way it's like deciding between ice cream and cake, both are great! I think Suh and McCoy are locks to go in the top 3 overall, maybe even top 2, and they are the best defensive tackle prospects to come along in 10-15 years. Meanwhile, who has never been known to follow the crowd with his draft evaluations grades Oklahoma QB Sam Bradford as the #1 player overall, although he somewhat surprisingly actually has the same grade as a couple of former Georgia Tech juniors in DE Derrick Morgan and WR Demaryious Thomas. According to Lande, whose main claim to football fame is still the fact that he was our seatmate at our first NFL draft, “Bradford's accuracy, poise, leadership, good athleticism, poise and decision making give him the tools to be a very good quarterback in the NFL and because of the importance of a QB to an NFL team he gets the #1 spot. In terms of Suh and McCoy, I rate Suh higher because he plays with more competitiveness, intensity and passion on every snap which enables him to play with better technique and be more productive throughout games, despite not having the elite/rare athleticism that McCoy has.”

Question #2: Is Sam Bradford of Oklahoma, Notre Dame’s Jimmy Clausen, or someone else the #1 QB this year (and we gave the panel a real break by not asking specifically about the QB from Florida!)

Needless to say, given the above, Lande clearly has Bradford rated as the top QB prospect “if your are believe that his injured shoulder is going to be fine, which I do. I just believe his accuracy, decision making and poise/leadership are outstanding and give him the tools to become a top level QB. While I like Clausen and gave him a top of the 2nd round grade, I do have concerns about his size, arm strength and his ability to make throws over 15 yards with consistent accuracy.” Lande also added that he has two much less heralded QBs in Jonathan Crompton from Tennessee and Troy’s Levi Brown ranked in his top 5 prospects at the position; indeed, Lande currently has Crompton rated ahead of Clausen, as well as Colt McCoy of Texas as his #2 QB. Jones also gives the edge to Bradford if he‘s healthy. According to Jones “Clausen looks great at times, but not so great other times. The puzzle in this year’s draft is whether any QB is worth a first round selection especially given the price. Tebow will get drafted, probably in the first three rounds, but the questions whether he is a legitimate NFL QB prospect persist, while McCoy is also a probable top 100 prospect, but doesn’t really excite people. The QB who got the plaudits at the Senior Bowl was Tony Pike who has the best arm and can make all the throws. Pike could also be the most ready to step in at the next level, but the injury history and some inconsistencies will hold him back. For his part, Wright also doesn’t think that “either Clausen or Bradford are elite, franchise quarterback prospects and that neither is on the same level as Matthew Stafford or Mark Sanchez were last year. With that said I would go with Clausen every day of the week. There is plenty to like about Bradford, most notably his intangibles and accuracy, but there are also a lot of major question marks ranging from his health and durability to his arm strength to the system he played in at Oklahoma. On the other hand Clausen has adequate physical tools across the board and is well-versed in a pro-style offense after starting for three years in Charlie Weis' system. If I am going to invest $30-plus million guaranteed in a player I would prefer to minimize risk and even though Clausen isn't a sure-thing he is a much safer choice than Bradford.” Coyle is the camp that feels that Bradford and Clausen “are clearly the top two passers and probably the only 1st round selections at the position. Bradford is my #1 guy but must answer injury issue. He is a talented kid with winning NFL QB potential, but he is still young and inexperienced. Probably goes in top 5 if he passes the eye ball test. Clausen is one of the rising prospects in this class. He had a strong junior season last fall and with an impressive workout could elevate into the top 10 selections in April. There may not be another QB in the top 50 overall selections.”

 
gil brandt compares bradford to secretariat in his separation from clausen and the "field". :lol: i think he also said recently he reminded him of peyton manning, at a comparable stage of their careers...

http://www.hotslive.com/nfl-football-team-...ord-top-qb.html

NFL Football : Team officials say Sam Bradford top QB

INDIANAPOLIS — The question is simple enough: Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen?

The answer, though, is even simpler: Sam Bradford.

Former NFL general manager and NFL Network analyst Charley Casserly said he’s spoken with personnel from 16 teams for player evaluation so far, and there is a clear leader.

“On interviewing people,” Casserly said, “it was unanimous on Bradford over Clausen.”

Gil Brandt, another former GM and now a senior writer at NFL.com, has a similar opinion.

“My thoughts are that it’s not even close,” Brandt said. “It’s like Secretariat against the rest of the field.”

Both Bradford and Clausen are at the NFL Scouting Combine and spent part of Saturday answering questions from media at Lucas Oil Stadium.

* bradford's bio... didn't know he shattered grossman's NCAA record for frosh/soph combined passing TDs (84 - 55), in fact, almost breaking it his soph year alone... i knew he had close to 50 TDs that heisman year, just forgot grossman in first two years "only" had a combined 55.

http://www.sambradford.org/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Courtesy bump for AJ Feeley. :P

Wasn't expecting a lot of movement for the Rams in the first day, if I'm being perfectly honest. With all the team's needs, what are people looking for in terms of free agents?

 
Courtesy bump for AJ Feeley. :goodposting:Wasn't expecting a lot of movement for the Rams in the first day, if I'm being perfectly honest. With all the team's needs, what are people looking for in terms of free agents?
A backup tailback, and help at LB. Not that the latter is necessarily out there.Put me in the Suh camp. Let's be clear: This team is not good. They need impact players all throughout the roster. The Rams won't be winning this year; they'll probably have another Top 5 pick in 2011, which has the benefit of looking like it has better QB talent. Locker, Mallett, Luck, etc. Any of those three would be great. There WILL be top-rated QBs available, but this sort of dominant defensive talent? No. People obsessing over Bradford aren't thinking beyond 2010, and seem to be conveniently overlooking all of the question marks about Bradford prior to the last couple of weeks. They should continually be aiming for the best player available regardless of position--and honestly, I think that Suh and McCoy are the two best players in the draft. And DT isn't a nonsense position; it's not like they're drafting a position that's easy to find dominant players at. It can have a tremendous impact on the entire team. If Bradford doesn't work out, it'll set this franchise back even further. Take the gimme--take Suh.
 
I think Bradford is a franchise QB and think he will be the Rams pick. 6'4 1/4, 236, fairly mobile and great accuracy. Suh would be tough to pass on, but Bradford is the guy.

 
Courtesy bump for AJ Feeley. :lmao:Wasn't expecting a lot of movement for the Rams in the first day, if I'm being perfectly honest. With all the team's needs, what are people looking for in terms of free agents?
A backup tailback, and help at LB. Not that the latter is necessarily out there.Put me in the Suh camp. Let's be clear: This team is not good. They need impact players all throughout the roster. The Rams won't be winning this year; they'll probably have another Top 5 pick in 2011, which has the benefit of looking like it has better QB talent. Locker, Mallett, Luck, etc. Any of those three would be great. There WILL be top-rated QBs available, but this sort of dominant defensive talent? No. People obsessing over Bradford aren't thinking beyond 2010, and seem to be conveniently overlooking all of the question marks about Bradford prior to the last couple of weeks. They should continually be aiming for the best player available regardless of position--and honestly, I think that Suh and McCoy are the two best players in the draft. And DT isn't a nonsense position; it's not like they're drafting a position that's easy to find dominant players at. It can have a tremendous impact on the entire team. If Bradford doesn't work out, it'll set this franchise back even further. Take the gimme--take Suh.
A backup to Steven Jackson and two starting OLBs are definitely needs. I had more hope for maybe a consistent receiving tight end or a defensive end in free agency or trades, but it's a very limited crop. It's bad enough that some fans seem to welcome the idea of bringing Incognito back.As for the draft, I've longed for Suh in a Rams uniform for a while now and I get all your points, but I'm not sure if it will materialize. If the Rams do believe that Bradford could be their franchise QB, it's hard to imagine them passing him up, and I can accept that.
 
Take Suh who looks like the next Reggie WhiteBest QB in second round
Suh is a no brainer, I sincerely hope I can buy a Rams jersey with his name on it next year. Drafting a QB in the second round won't be a huge drop in talent. Plus I'd rather we grab a player who we can sit on the bench for a year while he digests the game, sort of like Aaron Rodgers. I know we don't have a Brett Farve that he can watch and learn from, but it seems like the transition to the NFL is easier on a young QB without the pressure of taking the franchise from the bottom to the top. That's a lot to ask out of a young man. Colt McCoy in the second?
 
Courtesy bump for AJ Feeley. ;)Wasn't expecting a lot of movement for the Rams in the first day, if I'm being perfectly honest. With all the team's needs, what are people looking for in terms of free agents?
A backup tailback, and help at LB. Not that the latter is necessarily out there.Put me in the Suh camp. Let's be clear: This team is not good. They need impact players all throughout the roster. The Rams won't be winning this year; they'll probably have another Top 5 pick in 2011, which has the benefit of looking like it has better QB talent. Locker, Mallett, Luck, etc. Any of those three would be great. There WILL be top-rated QBs available, but this sort of dominant defensive talent? No. People obsessing over Bradford aren't thinking beyond 2010, and seem to be conveniently overlooking all of the question marks about Bradford prior to the last couple of weeks. They should continually be aiming for the best player available regardless of position--and honestly, I think that Suh and McCoy are the two best players in the draft. And DT isn't a nonsense position; it's not like they're drafting a position that's easy to find dominant players at. It can have a tremendous impact on the entire team. If Bradford doesn't work out, it'll set this franchise back even further. Take the gimme--take Suh.
The only issue I have with all this is that I think Bradford is better than any of the QB's who will be out next year. If the Rams front office feels the same way, then its a no brainer to me. This is a QB driven league now more than ever, and you have to have a top QB to in the running more often than not.
 
Take Suh who looks like the next Reggie WhiteBest QB in second round
Suh is a no brainer, I sincerely hope I can buy a Rams jersey with his name on it next year. Drafting a QB in the second round won't be a huge drop in talent. Plus I'd rather we grab a player who we can sit on the bench for a year while he digests the game, sort of like Aaron Rodgers. I know we don't have a Brett Farve that he can watch and learn from, but it seems like the transition to the NFL is easier on a young QB without the pressure of taking the franchise from the bottom to the top. That's a lot to ask out of a young man. Colt McCoy in the second?
Do you really believe there is just a slight drop in talent from Sam Bradford to Colt McCoy?
 
Take Suh who looks like the next Reggie WhiteBest QB in second round
Suh is a no brainer, I sincerely hope I can buy a Rams jersey with his name on it next year. Drafting a QB in the second round won't be a huge drop in talent. Plus I'd rather we grab a player who we can sit on the bench for a year while he digests the game, sort of like Aaron Rodgers. I know we don't have a Brett Farve that he can watch and learn from, but it seems like the transition to the NFL is easier on a young QB without the pressure of taking the franchise from the bottom to the top. That's a lot to ask out of a young man. Colt McCoy in the second?
Do you really believe there is just a slight drop in talent from Sam Bradford to Colt McCoy?
I think it's impossible to judge with 100% certainty that the difference between the two is worth passing on Suh.
 
Courtesy bump for AJ Feeley. :unsure:Wasn't expecting a lot of movement for the Rams in the first day, if I'm being perfectly honest. With all the team's needs, what are people looking for in terms of free agents?
A backup tailback, and help at LB. Not that the latter is necessarily out there.Put me in the Suh camp. Let's be clear: This team is not good. They need impact players all throughout the roster. The Rams won't be winning this year; they'll probably have another Top 5 pick in 2011, which has the benefit of looking like it has better QB talent. Locker, Mallett, Luck, etc. Any of those three would be great. There WILL be top-rated QBs available, but this sort of dominant defensive talent? No. People obsessing over Bradford aren't thinking beyond 2010, and seem to be conveniently overlooking all of the question marks about Bradford prior to the last couple of weeks. They should continually be aiming for the best player available regardless of position--and honestly, I think that Suh and McCoy are the two best players in the draft. And DT isn't a nonsense position; it's not like they're drafting a position that's easy to find dominant players at. It can have a tremendous impact on the entire team. If Bradford doesn't work out, it'll set this franchise back even further. Take the gimme--take Suh.
A backup to Steven Jackson and two starting OLBs are definitely needs. I had more hope for maybe a consistent receiving tight end or a defensive end in free agency or trades, but it's a very limited crop. It's bad enough that some fans seem to welcome the idea of bringing Incognito back.As for the draft, I've longed for Suh in a Rams uniform for a while now and I get all your points, but I'm not sure if it will materialize. If the Rams do believe that Bradford could be their franchise QB, it's hard to imagine them passing him up, and I can accept that.
I can accept it too, I just think it's a bit shortsighted. You're also dead on about the need for a consistent receiving tight end, but I think there are multiple good prospects in the draft that they could pick up. With so many teams stocked at TE, some solid talent might drop to the 3rd round. Probably not Gresham, but Hernandez, McCoy, both Grahams, Dickerson, or Pitta would all be worth taking.
 
what if rams fans thought bradford was going to be as good as ryan or sanchez (two QBs the rams passed on last two seasons)... would they still rather have suh?

agreed if rams don't think bradford is a franchise QB, or deem him an undue medical risk, they should look in a different direction, possibly another position.

but if he checks out, i don't like the idea of waiting longer.

they waited past two years, and missed ryan & sanchez (again, they claimed due to bulger's contract, this would have been difficult).

past two #2 overall picks, long & smith, still have questions. if those picks don't fulfill their potential, would we characterize the rams front office for being too risky... or too safe?

there is a school of thought that it was better to be conservative, because the rams "couldn't afford to miss" on the pick... much like here. the problem, year in & year out drafting, not to win, but to not lose, can lead to a roster populated with pretty good but not great players.

yeah, i guess the rams could get set back further... but further than what... hard to see how it can be much worse than the past 2-3 seasons (six wins in three years).

maybe the rams need to break the recent trend and not play it so safe.

QBs can bust, but so can DTs...

again, dorsey was called a once-in-a-decade DT a few years ago, and compared to sapp.

now some are saying the same thing about suh... yet mayock likes mccoy better in this draft (how can he be best in a decade if he isn't even this year)! :goodposting:

college to pro is a huge transition for QB, but DT also... if they pay suh that much and he isn't a great DT, won't that set the franchise back, too?

they will have a huge amount of money allocated to suh & long (maybe it doesn't matter in future uncapped environment?), and still be in need of a dominant pass rusher long hasn't been & may never be.

just as with the wait on the QB strategy, STL could wait for a DL next year, get a non-1st round DT, and spend a high pick on an elite, difference making DE?

the problem with waiting is that it can take a QB a year or two to develop... plus they have sputtered with bulger for a few years, & have ALREADY been waiting a few years... if they wait until 2011, and he isn't ready to play at a high level until 2012-2013... that is a long time to wait.

the same argument that we aren't that good and won't be for a few years led the rams to (mistakenly) pass on sanchez.

also, if we are going to attribute risk to bradford (apart for medical, which needs to be weighed carefully) and acknowledge that he could bust, the same could be said about locker... he wouldn't be immune to that risk, & if he failed, that would also set the franchise back. at some point, unless the team trades for a player or makes a bigger free agency move, they have to pull the trigger on a rookie QB, despite the acknowledged risk.

some would say locker is a better prospect... he has great measurables, but if he was such a great prospect, maybe he would have come out this year.

is bradford a big reach on talent... i thought he would have been in the conversation for top QB with stafford & sanchez if he had come out in 2009?

the flip side to setting the organization back is that NOTHING would give the team more hope and more of a lift than if they nail a high pick on a QB... they haven't drafted a 1st round QB in close to a half CENTURY (since mid-60s i think? traded for rights to 3rd overall everett, and obviously had success with UFA warner & 6th rounder bulger)!!! that is an incredible stat.

isn't nearly a half century long enough to wait? :)

have they been awful in recent seasons more because of DT or QB problems? have they failed because they tried to too hard to remedy the QB position, or not enough? i realize they have a lot of holes which can't all be filled at once.

if they don't have a great (top 5-10) DT, they could still draft, trade, acquire in free agency better other positions around that... it would not be hard to field a better, more competitive defense, even without an elite DT. the colts won the super bowl with a bad run defense in regular season, but in the playoffs, bob sanders elevated them to another level. we probably need a pass rushing DE, a WLB AND SLB, and our secondary is questionable. it isn't clear what is going to happen with atogwe... he is a ball hawk, and generates FFs, but not the most reliable back line defender. the rams probably need 1-2 CBs... put those other pieces in place, and it would go a long way to fixing the defense, with or without suh.

what if the rams get better OL & skill position players like WR & TE... but continue to languish with poor QB (i realize pro-suh advocates aren't saying to not get one, just not this year)... you can't work around that... there is no hope for a franchise without a QB. a better QB & offense would help the defense by keeping them off the field and allowing them to rest, giving them better field position, & taking the pressure off by getting a lead and enabling them to play downhill, rush the passer more, etc.

* one pick doesn't have to be so life & death.

we all hope top picks are huge difference makers, but the reality is, long and smith may not have had ideal starts to their career, but could still be very good. rams fans probably hoped for more... they may not be as good as advertised, but conversely, could still help & be building blocks. if they are very good it won't make the franchise, and if they are average it won't break it. no different for bradford.

look at SD. leaf went in same draft as manning, is out of league, manning still playing in super bowls & could be doing so for another half decade+?

yet SD has a very good team, & drafted TWO QBs since then (brees, who they let get away, beat manning in the super bowl, & they STILL have the younger QB rivers). they actually drafted a QB they didn't even keep, eli, & extracted a king's ransom from the giants (who have already won one super bowl)... though, it isn't the rams fault if there hasn't a QB in past few drafts that commanded that kind of attention.

the rams didn't draft leaf... but they also didn't get brees or rivers... sometimes it is necessary to take risks to achieve greatness. if it was easy, more teams would be great.

but SD is an example of team that has made good organizational moves with the draft IN GENERAL, in free agency, trades (getting a 3rd for the failed cromartie, possibly a 2nd... the rams cut their busts, like tye hill, etc). they have put themselves in position with a nice core of talent, depth, mix of youth & age, high & low draft picks... floyd & nanee look good and weren't high picks, i don't think?

if rams continue to stumble in all facets, suh won't save the franchise. if they start to make consistently better moves, they will be better even if bradford isn't one of the top QBs in the league, but is still good (good is OK, but among the worst in the league like the rams have been in past few years leads to hopelessness)...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the Redskins are hot for Bradford, how about a Campbell/#4 for the #1 trade?

I really think Campbell has gotten a raw deal in his time in the league.

Plus, does StL really want to pay that much money to the #1 pick?

 
If the Redskins are hot for Bradford, how about a Campbell/#4 for the #1 trade?I really think Campbell has gotten a raw deal in his time in the league.Plus, does StL really want to pay that much money to the #1 pick?
It would take more than Campbell I think. If McNabb is only worth a 2nd round pick, Campbell is like a 4th or 5th round pick. I think the Rams take Bradford and think hard about taking Gresham if he's there in the 2nd round.
 
If the Redskins are hot for Bradford, how about a Campbell/#4 for the #1 trade?I really think Campbell has gotten a raw deal in his time in the league.Plus, does StL really want to pay that much money to the #1 pick?
It would take more than Campbell I think. If McNabb is only worth a 2nd round pick, Campbell is like a 4th or 5th round pick. I think the Rams take Bradford and think hard about taking Gresham if he's there in the 2nd round.
Campbell plus the #4 pick, I meant. And for the life of me, I don't get teams not jumping all over McNabb if the pricetag is only a 2nd rounder. I know he's due a lot of money, but that's because he's pretty darn GOOD.
 
If the Redskins are hot for Bradford, how about a Campbell/#4 for the #1 trade?I really think Campbell has gotten a raw deal in his time in the league.Plus, does StL really want to pay that much money to the #1 pick?
It would take more than Campbell I think. If McNabb is only worth a 2nd round pick, Campbell is like a 4th or 5th round pick. I think the Rams take Bradford and think hard about taking Gresham if he's there in the 2nd round.
Campbell plus the #4 pick, I meant. And for the life of me, I don't get teams not jumping all over McNabb if the pricetag is only a 2nd rounder. I know he's due a lot of money, but that's because he's pretty darn GOOD.
#4 + 5th round pick < #1I just don't think it makes much sense for the Rams unless they really like Jason Campbell. If Bradford, Suh and McCoy are the top three picks, who do the Rams take at 4? Maybe they take Clausen but then trading for Campbell doesn't make much sense. Do they go OT? They are already paying Jason Smith big bucks, I don't know if it makes sense giving another another rookie OT a fat contract. Maybe Eric Berry? I guess the Rams could make it work if they really like Campbell but it would be a hard sell to the fans.
 
If the Redskins are hot for Bradford, how about a Campbell/#4 for the #1 trade?I really think Campbell has gotten a raw deal in his time in the league.Plus, does StL really want to pay that much money to the #1 pick?
It would take more than Campbell I think. If McNabb is only worth a 2nd round pick, Campbell is like a 4th or 5th round pick. I think the Rams take Bradford and think hard about taking Gresham if he's there in the 2nd round.
Campbell plus the #4 pick, I meant. And for the life of me, I don't get teams not jumping all over McNabb if the pricetag is only a 2nd rounder. I know he's due a lot of money, but that's because he's pretty darn GOOD.
#4 + 5th round pick < #1I just don't think it makes much sense for the Rams unless they really like Jason Campbell. If Bradford, Suh and McCoy are the top three picks, who do the Rams take at 4? Maybe they take Clausen but then trading for Campbell doesn't make much sense. Do they go OT? They are already paying Jason Smith big bucks, I don't know if it makes sense giving another another rookie OT a fat contract. Maybe Eric Berry? I guess the Rams could make it work if they really like Campbell but it would be a hard sell to the fans.
Good point. Not sure who they'd take at #4. Berry probably. Or if they're tired of Barron jumping offsides they could take Okung.I know we're getting into Madden territory here, but at that point maybe they could trade down again.
 
bradford will be the #1 pick...

the only way the rams trade out of the spot (which imo is looking increasingly unlikely), is if they get two 1sts (2010 & 2011) and a 2nd (2010) at a minimum...

even if this offer is made, if they think bradford is a franchise QB, i still think they pass.

 
A guy has a good pro day, and suddenly all of the question marks that had been haunting him for several months--can he make the reads, can he withstand the pro pass rush, can he succeed in a non-spread attack, how much life is in his twice surgically-repaired shoulder--are suddenly waved off.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A guy has a good pro day, and suddenly all of the question marks that had been haunting him for several months--can he make the reads, can he withstand the pro pass rush, can he succeed in a non-spread attack, how much life is in his twice surgically-repaired shoulder--are suddenly waved off.
its not like he came out of nowhere...he was in the conversation for #1 pick last year, with stafford... opinion seems to be divided here on the board who the favorite would have been, but certainly some went with bradford. i don't think he played enough last year to point at big question marks with his ON FIELD ability and performance, if they weren't there already, based on his first two years (he almost broke grossman's frosh/soph TD record... as a freshman! :goodposting: ).it was just a pro day, but it was reportedly an exceptional one. brandt called it the best he has seen, along with aikman. i think mayock said it was one of the best he has seen this decade. the key things with bradford seem to be decisiveness, a quick release & accuracy. these are sort of attributes that you are born with, either you have them or you don't...some of the other stuff... like taking a snap under center, he has done, if not a lot in games, and he claims they used to practice it a lot, especially earlier in his careeer at oklahoma. it is an inferential argument, but when somebody like mayock, brandt or casserly, say that he looks the part of a franchise QB, i take it as a given that isn't JUST because his pro day, they have also looked at his film, are weighing his scouting attributes, etc... i take it as a given they have factored in that he didn't have the advantage of running a pro style offense like clausen, making multiple reads... yet despite that, is STILL a better prospect. he seems like a pretty good athlete... i think roethlisberger at akron was in the shotgun a lot (?).i'm not overly concerned he will trip when he tries to backpedal from center (not that you mentioned this, but some people in these type of situations in past questioned that taking snap under center can be a difficult transition?)... to me, taking a snap is one of the easier things i can think of that happens on a football field, AT ANY POSITION. :popcorn: i realize the timing, and footwork are different, as well as lines of sight and field vision POV.it does raise an interesting question (maybe i'll start a thread)... is there a success/bust rate correlation between being groomed in college pro style attack vs. spread-types.... off the top of my head, there must be examples of each on both sides.can he withstand the rush... along with accuracy, timing, the ability to process information quickly, having a sense a the pass rush, etc... you never really KNOW how they did in college will translate to the NFL... i think he is more accurate than any QB i have seen in the past 3-4 classes (in reverse chronological order... stafford, sanchez, ryan, flacco, russell, etc... three of these guys took their teams to the playoffs AS ROOKIES (ATL was a shock, but of course BAL & NYJ had better teams than the rams when they took their rookie QB).as to the shoulder, how can we judge if we aren't doctors... i have to trust the medical staff... they could make a mistake, and say he is fine and than look foolish if he is hurt. they could also be wrong if they are overly conservative and he stars for the next 15 years for another team. andrews has said it is not an issue. not just that it is ok NOW, but as in he is in no greater appreciable risk to suffer another shoulder injury any other QB would be to have a first injury. maybe his testimony is tainted and suspect, as he did the operation... but his rep and his credibility is contingent on being neutral and unbiased... if that is called into question, his opinion won't be any good (though his surgical skills would still be in demand :hophead: )... and andrews was just one doctor that looked at him... he was gone over with a fine-tooth comb at the combine, and by all accounts, his shoulder isn't a concern. he does have two shoulder injuries, but only one surgery... it was an AC joint reconstruction, which i don't think is as serious as the torn rotator cuff/labrum-type. and his second injury happened because he probably wasn't fully healed.i don't really like the options at QB in 2nd round... no guarantee rams are locked into a chance at a franchise QB next year... what if a QB gets hurt (like a shoulder injury :) )... or underwhelms... what if locker & mallett escape these, and go 1-2, and we are 3? lot of ways that could go wrong... so put it off until 2012... oh, but what if that QB didn't come from pro style attack, and is too much risk for a high pick? maybe wait until 2013... but it takes a year or two to develope and be more competitive, usually growing pains with virtually all rookie QBs other than marino & roesthlisberger (elway, aikman, manning, etc)... so maybe they have somebody functional by 2014-2015? and it has already been 3 BRUTAL years (6 wins in 48 games)...i said elsewhere, but with the rams having one of the worst QB siuations in the league for a few years, to go through a three year stretch drafting 2, 2 & 1 and NOT come away with a franchise QB (effectively passing on ryan, sanchez and bradford) is completely incomprehensible to me (suh's potential greatness notwithstanding).while on subject of suh, it is at least as long an odds that suh becomes one of the best overall defenders in the league, as it is for bradford to become a top 8-10 QB (which puts you in playoff contention if you have enough of the other pieces of the puzzle).i could be way off, but i wrote in the mcnabb trade thread that i think QB is central to the offense in a way that there isn't an analogous position on defense... a good defense can be put together without an all pro DT. but if the rams continue to have no future at the most important position on the field, the offense will continue to be a nightmare, the kind you don't wake up from. :) * another reason i am high on braford... his constellation of intangibles (presence, leadership, work ethic) seems similar to recent successes ryan, stafford and sanchez. if he fails, it won't be because he didn't work at it, unlike russell... when you couple his work ethic and leadership with some of his other positives (accuracy, quick release), that should be a potent combo.sanchez may have had a question about his knee (devaney recently alluded to this, & i thought he was referring to BEFORE 2009 draft), and he did hurt his knee last season. ryan had questions because he threw a lot of INTs his last year... virtually all rookie QBs are going to have some questions... was it really any less a roll of the dice on sanchez... the track record of early entry juniors not that great... he had very few starts under his belt, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interestingly, I stumbled across this blog post on Bradford (courtesy of Field Gulls) that reflects my concerns..which, of course, I've been saying for quite awhile now.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2010/4/1/1401128/sam-bradford

Could Bradford work out? Sure. I was much more on board before his lost 2009 season and the emergence of what I see as more of a sure thing--Suh. This franchise doesn't need to gamble at this point. It needs to accrue talent. To grow a defense. It's a mistake to believe that Bradford is the last, best chance at turning a franchise around. There are multiple routes. Plugging in a journeyman this year and waiting for 2011's crop of QBs is entirely reasonable. Hoping that an elite DT prospect appears in 2011 is not. The Rams aren't going to fall out of the top 5. The teams that are most likely to pick top 5 aren't going to be taking QB's 1-2.

I just get tired of the "THEY HAVE TO TAKE BRADFORD" mentality that seems to persist across the Internet. That's anything but the case.

 
Luckily for you the internet isn't handling the Rams draft. Can you blame Ram's fans for getting more excited about the possibility of having a guy of Bradford's skillset replace Bulger over yet another Nebraska D-Linemen, and not even a DE?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interestingly, I stumbled across this blog post on Bradford (courtesy of Field Gulls) that reflects my concerns..which, of course, I've been saying for quite awhile now.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2010/4/1/1401128/sam-bradford

Could Bradford work out? Sure. I was much more on board before his lost 2009 season and the emergence of what I see as more of a sure thing--Suh. This franchise doesn't need to gamble at this point. It needs to accrue talent. To grow a defense. It's a mistake to believe that Bradford is the last, best chance at turning a franchise around. There are multiple routes. Plugging in a journeyman this year and waiting for 2011's crop of QBs is entirely reasonable. Hoping that an elite DT prospect appears in 2011 is not. The Rams aren't going to fall out of the top 5. The teams that are most likely to pick top 5 aren't going to be taking QB's 1-2.

I just get tired of the "THEY HAVE TO TAKE BRADFORD" mentality that seems to persist across the Internet. That's anything but the case.
I couldn't disagree more. Why wait until 2011 to draft your franchise QB? Its completely silly when fans say "Team X should wait until next year and draft _____" No team in the NFL thinks this way. I'd be pretty pissed off as a fan if my team did think this way. If the Rams think Bradford is a franchise QB, they should draft him. QB is the most important position on the field and teams with stability at the position are usually contenders every year. Suh is a unique talent, but he is no sure thing (no player is). The Rams might look like a hopeless franchise at the moment but things change very quickly in the NFL. In the past two drafts the Ravens, Falcons, Lions, Jets and Buccanneers all "gambled" and took a QB early. All of them are pretty happy with the decision they made.

Do you think the Lions would have been better off it they had taken Aaron Curry last year and waited until this year to take a QB?

The Rams last four first rounders.

2009 - 1.02 Jason Smith OT (passed on Sanchez)

2008 - 1.02 Chris Long DE (passed on Ryan)

2007 - 1.13 Adam Carriker DT

2006 - 1.15 Tye Hill CB (passed on Cutler and traded down. Hill was traded last year for a 7th round pick)

They've spent high draft picks on building the trenches. Carriker has struggled. Long has underperformed. Smith got injured and missed a lot of games but its still really early to really determine how good he'll be.

Bottom line: If the Rams are confident that Bradford is a franchise QB worthy of a top 5 pick, then they should draft him. If they aren't convinced, then they should look elsewhere.

 
Interestingly, I stumbled across this blog post on Bradford (courtesy of Field Gulls) that reflects my concerns..which, of course, I've been saying for quite awhile now.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2010/4/1/1401128/sam-bradford

Could Bradford work out? Sure. I was much more on board before his lost 2009 season and the emergence of what I see as more of a sure thing--Suh. This franchise doesn't need to gamble at this point. It needs to accrue talent. To grow a defense. It's a mistake to believe that Bradford is the last, best chance at turning a franchise around. There are multiple routes. Plugging in a journeyman this year and waiting for 2011's crop of QBs is entirely reasonable. Hoping that an elite DT prospect appears in 2011 is not. The Rams aren't going to fall out of the top 5. The teams that are most likely to pick top 5 aren't going to be taking QB's 1-2.

I just get tired of the "THEY HAVE TO TAKE BRADFORD" mentality that seems to persist across the Internet. That's anything but the case.
I couldn't disagree more. Why wait until 2011 to draft your franchise QB? Its completely silly when fans say "Team X should wait until next year and draft _____" No team in the NFL thinks this way. I'd be pretty pissed off as a fan if my team did think this way. If the Rams think Bradford is a franchise QB, they should draft him. QB is the most important position on the field and teams with stability at the position are usually contenders every year. Suh is a unique talent, but he is no sure thing (no player is). The Rams might look like a hopeless franchise at the moment but things change very quickly in the NFL. In the past two drafts the Ravens, Falcons, Lions, Jets and Buccanneers all "gambled" and took a QB early. All of them are pretty happy with the decision they made.

Do you think the Lions would have been better off it they had taken Aaron Curry last year and waited until this year to take a QB?

The Rams last four first rounders.

2009 - 1.02 Jason Smith OT (passed on Sanchez)

2008 - 1.02 Chris Long DE (passed on Ryan)

2007 - 1.13 Adam Carriker DT

2006 - 1.15 Tye Hill CB (passed on Cutler and traded down. Hill was traded last year for a 7th round pick)

They've spent high draft picks on building the trenches. Carriker has struggled. Long has underperformed. Smith got injured and missed a lot of games but its still really early to really determine how good he'll be.

Bottom line: If the Rams are confident that Bradford is a franchise QB worthy of a top 5 pick, then they should draft him. If they aren't convinced, then they should look elsewhere.
I'm with you on this one milkshake. A competant QB will make a world of difference for the offense and the defense. The rams scored 175 points last year and don't have a NFL starter caliber QB on the roster. He's big, he's strong can make all the throws and from all interviews has that "it" leadership. A QB like he could become is worth 10 times that of a probowl DT...you cannot win in the NFL anymore without the QB.

 
I couldn't disagree more. Why wait until 2011 to draft your franchise QB?
That rhetorical question makes no sense. Why wait until 2011 to improve your catastrophic defense when there's an elite prospect at DT available? When your choices are thus:2010: elite DT prospect; potential franchise QB prospect (Bradford)

2011: potential franchise QB prospect (Locker, Mallett), lesser DT prospects

Then, faced with those two options and a total rebuilding project, which is the more sensible choice?

Another excellent post you might be interested in, including video:

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2010/3/31/139...why-a-dt-should

. He's big, he's strong can make all the throws and from all interviews has that "it" leadership.
Or, he comes from a spread offense, spends most of his time in the shotgun in a QB-friendly system, rarely threw balls longer than 15 yards, and has a surgically repaired shoulder that may be healthy now, but will be sorely tested behind a Rams OL that gave up almost 100 QB hits last year. Look, people fall in love with pro days, that's understandable. This team does not need gambles. This team is terrible.This team is not "one player away" from winning. It is multiple players away. It needs to accrue talent. Multi-year rebuilding should be done with a plan in mind. This plan should involve taking the most dominant defensive player in football at a crucial position. It's a rare opportunity. Passing it up is shortsighted.

 
If the Redskins are hot for Bradford, how about a Campbell/#4 for the #1 trade?

I really think Campbell has gotten a raw deal in his time in the league.

Plus, does StL really want to pay that much money to the #1 pick?
It would take more than Campbell I think. If McNabb is only worth a 2nd round pick, Campbell is like a 4th or 5th round pick. I think the Rams take Bradford and think hard about taking Gresham if he's there in the 2nd round.
Campbell plus the #4 pick, I meant. And for the life of me, I don't get teams not jumping all over McNabb if the pricetag is only a 2nd rounder. I know he's due a lot of money, but that's because he's pretty darn GOOD.
According to the NFL Draft Pick chart to go from #4 to the #1 pick is a 1200 unit difference or the same as the 12th overall pick. No way the Rams take Cambell and the 4th for the 1st.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

 
The Rams last four first rounders. 2009 - 1.02 Jason Smith OT (passed on Sanchez)2008 - 1.02 Chris Long DE (passed on Ryan)2007 - 1.13 Adam Carriker DT2006 - 1.15 Tye Hill CB (passed on Cutler and traded down. Hill was traded last year for a 7th round pick)They've spent high draft picks on building the trenches. Carriker has struggled. Long has underperformed. Smith got injured and missed a lot of games but its still really early to really determine how good he'll be.
One more thing I forgot; since you mentioned the Lions:2002 - 1.03 Joey Harringon QB2003 - 1.02 Charles Rogers WR2004 - 1.07 Roy Williams WR2005 - 1.10 Mike Williams WR2006 - 1.09 Ernie Sims LBThey spent four picks on offense in five years, three at the same position. However, when an dominant prospect came along, who did they pick?2007 - 1.02 Calvin Johnson WRSuh is a dominant prospect. My issue isn't so much taking Bradford over Player X; it's taking Bradford over player X at 1) a position of need, 2) a difficult position to find elite prospects at, and 3) the unlikelihood of having the same opportunity in 2011.
 
I couldn't disagree more. Why wait until 2011 to draft your franchise QB?
That rhetorical question makes no sense. Why wait until 2011 to improve your catastrophic defense when there's an elite prospect at DT available? When your choices are thus:2010: elite DT prospect; potential franchise QB prospect (Bradford)

2011: potential franchise QB prospect (Locker, Mallett), lesser DT prospects

Then, faced with those two options and a total rebuilding project, which is the more sensible choice?

Another excellent post you might be interested in, including video:

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2010/3/31/139...why-a-dt-should

. He's big, he's strong can make all the throws and from all interviews has that "it" leadership.
Or, he comes from a spread offense, spends most of his time in the shotgun in a QB-friendly system, rarely threw balls longer than 15 yards, and has a surgically repaired shoulder that may be healthy now, but will be sorely tested behind a Rams OL that gave up almost 100 QB hits last year. Look, people fall in love with pro days, that's understandable. This team does not need gambles. This team is terrible.This team is not "one player away" from winning. It is multiple players away. It needs to accrue talent. Multi-year rebuilding should be done with a plan in mind. This plan should involve taking the most dominant defensive player in football at a crucial position. It's a rare opportunity. Passing it up is shortsighted.
The 2007 Falcons were the 4th worst defense in the NFL, everyone talked that offseason about how the team was hopeless and had a serious rebuild ahead of them. 2008 NFL draft they take a QB and T to protect him in the 1st and get some injured D-Lineman back from injury for 2008 and WHOA all the sudden they are a contender and everyone forgets about the years of rebuilding they were suppose to have. Its amazing how much better a defense will look when you have a team that knows they actually have a chance to compete and in the 2010 NFL that begins with the QB. I'm not saying Bradford is "THE ONE" and I've been on him as the pick long before the pro day...but I have always prefaced it with, if he is healthy and they think he's a franchise QB. If they have him pegged as that taking a DT would be silly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My issue isn't so much taking Bradford over Player X; it's taking Bradford over player X at 1) a position of need, 2) a difficult position to find elite prospects at, and 3) the unlikelihood of having the same opportunity in 2011.
BTW, and a point you made above was addressed to the thread in general, but i also was on record as of about 3-6 advocating bradford, IF he is cleared on medical grounds (which by all acounts i have heard of, he has)... maybe earlier, in that i was posting more bradford than suh posts prior to that. :bag: the issue i am struggling with, is that we can point to many successful teams that went to the playoffs & even the super bowl, with ordinary DTs. it seems harder to me, to advance with an inferior QB (CHI with grossman & BAL with dilfer a couple recent contra-indicators to my premise, though)...

on your three points here...

1) QB at least or arguably greater need. the rams are so bad, things have degenerated to the level that virtually all positions are equally bad, and of need (obviously, some positions are more important than others, and positions like DB, interior OL, TE, FB don't get drafted #1 overall)...

2) QB is also a position difficult to find elite prospects. some think bradford is the best prospect at the position in a few years, and in more specific attributes (such as accuracy), maybe one of the best in past decade

all the difficulties encountered by a young QB that make the path from college greatness to pro greatness narrow, treacherous and strewn with obstacles, that only a few pass through, are similarly encountered in some shape or form by a DT. Pro OL are bigger, stronger, quicker, more agile, better at holding, etc. any top pick is a gamble, suh isn't somehow exempt from that. i'm not convinced that if we look at all the #1 overall picks (& why restrict it to that, take top 3 or 5 elite from each class) over the past few decades, there is a hard and fast correlation between prospects that are labelled good, really good & really really good (suh in the latter category, but so, supposedly, was dorsey just a few years ago), where the the prospects' ultimate, eventual outcomes unfold in a simplistic linear way relative to their initial grades (good just do good, really good just do really good... you get the picture)... and again, i am talking of elite, top 3-5 prospects (which bradford is by most accounts).

3) who says it is likely we will be in position to get a franchise QB next year... or that we are assured of being in the top 5 of the draft next year (bottom five team)... how many wins/losses separate a bottom five & bottom 8 team? what if mallett and locker emerge as the consensus top two, & ONLY two franchise caliber QBs in 2011 (bradford and clausen are generally thought to be only two last year, and some are sceptical of clausen, especially his leadership - kind of a hindrance in a QB... bulger was not the kind of QB OL run through walls for), and they go bang bang 1-2, and we aren't in a position to get one unless we are a bottom TWO team (which we have been admittedly three years in row, so i can't blame some for THINKING that and having that expectation - but it is far from set in stone). last year, bulger, WR, jason smith, carriker, CB were hurt... long came on in the second half... are we predicting all those injuries will happen again... that long won't start this year where he left off... last year the rams gutted their roster of older players (for good reason - pace and holt are done or near, as evidenced by their being cut by CHI and JAX after the season, despite needing help at OL and WR). this year they are adding role player vets like robbins and diggs, that while also on the downside of their careers, could easily be improvements over their counterparts last year.

so if we don't land a franchise QB in 2011 because we "mistakenly" assumed we would have a top 5 draft pick (hasn't happened yet, which is my point, from the other direction... this is a hypothetical), and predicated our long term drafting strategy and roster architecting around this fallacy that one would "definitely" be available to us next year, prolonging the offense's agonies and death throes for another year (or two - three?)... and the rams wait ANOTHER year... what if in 2012, some alex smith/brady quinn analogue is the best prospect available to us... we should pass, and not reach for a need... and then it is 2013... and again, in none of these years are we even guaranteed to be in a position like we are now (and, it should be added, we were in 2008 with ryan, and 2009 with sanchez - in retrospect, it looks like a mistake passing in both cases - passing on them won't be as egregious an error, IF we get braford and he works out... in that case, it enabled us to have gotten long and smith, and strengthen the OL & DL), with a shot at what many are calling a franchise caliber QB.

the rams haven't drafted a 1st round QB in nearly a half century, in '64 (they acquired third overall jim "don't call me chris" everett in trade, and warner turned out pretty good for a UFA in the interim). i'm 46. for perspective, i was one the last time it happened.

* i found this a germane, sobering and on point commentary on the hard choice the rams are faced with - bradford or DT.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft10/colu...&id=5040003

Originally Published: March 30, 2010

Drafting DTs is risky proposition

Hit-or-miss track record in top 10 could push Rams toward QB Bradford at No. 1

By Len Pasquarelli

ESPN.com

The recent history of the NFL draft is littered with first-round defensive tackles who never lived up to their press clippings.

Top-10 selections such as Glenn Dorsey (Kansas City, 2008), Sedrick Ellis (New Orleans, 2008), Amobi Okoye (Houston, 2007), Dewayne Robertson (New York Jets, 2003), Johnathan Sullivan (New Orleans, 2003) and Ryan Sims (Kansas City, 2002) have never played in a Pro Bowl and probably won't. Two of the six, in fact, are no longer in the league.

Defensive tackle isn't the ultimate hit-or-miss position, but it is pretty close.

"Because it's so hard to find [tackles], teams probably take more gambles at the position than at just about any other spot," said Carolina coach John Fox. "You tend to reach a little bit … and, let's face it, sometimes you get burned."

And that likely goes a long way toward explaining why the St. Louis Rams will probably tab Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford with the top overall selection in next month's draft and pass on the two standout defensive tackles available.

Ndamukong Suh is a big-time talent, but his position (defensive tackle) is a hindrance.

Granted, quarterbacks have proved to be as risky a boom-or-bust choice as tackles at the top of the draft. Maybe even more so. But the Rams, who have taken defensive linemen in the first round in two of the past three drafts, sorely need a quarterback. And while Nebraska's Ndamukong Suh and Oklahoma's Gerald McCoy are highly regarded by most scouts, defensive tackles don't win Super Bowl titles.

Indeed, the last franchise to win a championship with a first-round 4-3 tackle who was a Pro Bowl performer was Tampa Bay with Warren Sapp in 2002.

Not since 1994, when the Cincinnati Bengals grabbed Dan "Big Daddy" Wilkinson, has a defensive tackle been the top choice in a draft. Two tackles haven't been selected in the top five of any draft since 1992, when Indianapolis chose Steve Emtman (No. 1) and St. Louis took Sean Gilbert (No. 3). The first of those long droughts isn't likely to end this year, but the second one could.

Still, that isn't apt to end the innate skepticism that seems to exist regarding the tackle position.

"You get a great [tackle]," San Diego coach Norv Turner acknowledged at the annual NFL meeting last week, "and it changes the way that you have to plan offensively. But there aren't that many great ones to go around. [Those guys] are scarce."

Coach Jim Schwartz of Detroit, who probably will jump on Suh with the second overall pick, invoked the "planet theory" espoused by late New York Giants general manager George Young to justify taking a tackle. In its simplest form, the planet theory holds that there are a finite number of 300-pounders on Earth, and that you've got to consider one if he is available to you.

Said Schwartz: "You start with the size, the girth, and that's the first [prerequisite] to play the position. That alone makes it hard to locate guys. Then you throw in all the other stuff -- strength, quickness, the ability to anchor [versus the run] -- and it gets even harder."

Every indication is that Suh and McCoy are special players and sterling characters. It's still difficult, though, to overcome the pock-marked history of tackles as No. 1 choices. Since 1967, only five tackles -- Bubba Smith ('67), Kenneth Sims ('82), Russell Maryland ('91), Emtman ('92) and Wilkinson ('94) -- were chosen with the top pick. Three tackles were picked No. 1 in a four-year span from 1991-94, and none since.

In the 30 drafts from 1980 to 2009, 14 quarterbacks were chosen with the top pick (including 14 of the last 27) and only four defensive tackles. But as shaky as quarterbacks can be at times, eight of the 14 were chosen for at least one Pro Bowl game.

"If you're the best guy, then you're the best guy," said Suh, arguably the best tackle prospect in the past 20 years. "It really shouldn't matter [what position you play]."

But it does.

Part of it is economics, with franchises reluctant to invest tens of millions of dollars in players who aren't, by definition, true difference-makers. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch pointed out on Monday that, after choosing end Chris Long over Dorsey with the No. 2 overall pick in 2008, Rams president of football operations Jay Zygmunt justified the choice by announcing St. Louis didn't believe in spending exorbitant money on tackles.

That in part points to Bradford, who on Monday demonstrated no ill effects from his surgically repaired right arm, and who has been granted total clearance by noted orthopedist Dr. James Andrews. The uneven track record of tackles with the first pick, and in the first round, also points to Bradford.

As evidenced by the fact that three of this offseason's six franchise free agents were tackles -- not including Oakland's Richard Seymour, who has played both inside and outside -- tackles are at a premium. But only if a team is certain it possesses a premium guy.

Not counting defenders who were labeled as tackles in the draft, but who ended up at end in 3-4 fronts, 32 tackles were chosen in the first round the past 10 years. Nine of them played in at least one Pro Bowl, for a total of 24 appearances. Only two of the last 15 tackles chosen played on top-10 rush defenses their rookie years.

"In certain schemes, [tackles] are the engine that drives the car," Pittsburgh coach Mike Tomlin told the Post-Dispatch last week.

Just as often, however, they end up on the scrap heap. And that's a high-reward, high-risk gamble on which some franchises are loathe to roll the dice.

Len Pasquarelli, a recipient of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's McCann Award for distinguished reporting, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
found the below observations* by independent scout drew boylehart on a rams board... not sure if it was a general site post, or a personal correspondence with the poster... but if the latter, that poster put it out there for general consumption at least insofar as the board was concerned, so i am noting it here...

i think he makes a great point, that the rams are sitting pretty, in that they could take their starting QB for the next 10-12+ years, and be in a position to parlay the #33 pick into several other picks (they could replicate this with the high 3rd & 4th - the latter, after another overnight intermission like the 2.1, which should facilitate and be conducive to leveraging and extracting maximal value from those picks), and surround bradford with an additional weapon or two (WR, TE, RB2 upgrade, RT or RG?), as well as upgrade the defense (LB especially, DE, CB, S if atogwe moves on? if carriker can stay healthy, an admittedly huge if, DE could be a bigger need than DT... long far from sure to be great, hall is old, i assume little won't be back and is presumably near retirement anyways) with a few more pieces to the puzzle... add in another good draft in 2011, and another free agent cycle (next year shoud be much better, assuming there is a season), and the rams could be dramatically more competitive in a year or two (SEA has fallen back, ARI loses warner, boldin, dansby and rolle)... & therefore, NOT a lock to be bottom five in 2011, 2012, etc.

i think because the rams have bungled a lot of drafts in past decade (particularly at the top), there is a TENDENCY to assume they must always be as incompetent as zygmunt/shaw & martz/linehan were... imo, it will be nearly as impossible for devaney/spags to be as incompetent (if after the second super bowl in three years in 2001, i know, that was a long time ago, you had told me in how much disrepair the state of the franchise would find itself in, and they would have degenerated to 6-42 in past three years, and you had shown me how many high picks had busted or disappointed... i would have guessed that a monkey and a dartboard** could have done better... but i digress :suds: ) as their predecessors... the hope is, recent past entrenched organizational tendencies (ie - incompetencies) aren't locked and grooved into the future for perpetuity... a new front office, coaching staff and scouting department (maybe it will be the one after?) can break with the past, and do a better job... it is possible to get two to three starters from a draft (not always immediately, and maybe not every year... if bradley fletcher returns to form after knee injury, STL did that last year)... lots of teams have done it, in the past, and contemporary franchises. string a few drafts like that together, and you can become dramatically more competitive quickly... especially if the upgrades are at critically important positions... like QB :)

** especially if you HELPED the proverbial monkey and the dartboard by embedding them in a larger sort of stochastic process (?), part random (that would be the monkey), part not (see below) and restrict the monkey's dartboard targets to the top available 10-20 similarly graded prospects at given positions of need to subset screens, such as selecting for proven production and not overemphasizing athleticism/speed (polian has had a lot of success with players having proven production), or avoiding things like idiotic position conversions (with the monkey effectively restrained from blundering into the likes of trung canidate with a 1st and jacoby shepard with a 2nd rounder by the first screen, or a QB/WR eric crouch with a 3rd... DE/DT carriker was also a position conversion, with a top 15 1st - his best position is probably 3-4 DE)...

________________________________________________________________

* "Sam Bradford is the pick for you guys and no I have no significant issues with his mechanics. All QB's coming out in the draft need work. When you draft a QB in the first round you (as a coach) must be ready to put in an offensive system that will magnify Sam's attributes. Does Sam have some problems yes... but his intangibles and accuracy are the main talents a QB must have and Sam has both of those attributes. Dilfer's comments made me laugh because his techniques were very questionable when he came out in the draft. He should be ashamed of himself.

The smartest thing the Rams can do in this draft is to pick Bradford and then look to trade the 2nd round draft pick and get some good linebackers to help that defense. There are a lot of very good linebackers in this draft. There are also several wide receivers with excellent talent who will be available in later rounds. The Rams are sitting pretty because overnight they can make a big time deal for that 2nd pick. That means you will be able to draft a franchise QB and some very good players to help that team right a way. It's a deep draft in your need positions."

Drew Boylhart

The Huddle Report.com

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lyon812 said:
IDrinkyourMilkshake said:
I couldn't disagree more. Why wait until 2011 to draft your franchise QB?
That rhetorical question makes no sense. Why wait until 2011 to improve your catastrophic defense when there's an elite prospect at DT available? When your choices are thus:2010: elite DT prospect; potential franchise QB prospect (Bradford)

2011: potential franchise QB prospect (Locker, Mallett), lesser DT prospects

Then, faced with those two options and a total rebuilding project, which is the more sensible choice?

Another excellent post you might be interested in, including video:

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2010/3/31/139...why-a-dt-should

WfcChamp said:
. He's big, he's strong can make all the throws and from all interviews has that "it" leadership.
Or, he comes from a spread offense, spends most of his time in the shotgun in a QB-friendly system, rarely threw balls longer than 15 yards, and has a surgically repaired shoulder that may be healthy now, but will be sorely tested behind a Rams OL that gave up almost 100 QB hits last year. Look, people fall in love with pro days, that's understandable. This team does not need gambles. This team is terrible.This team is not "one player away" from winning. It is multiple players away. It needs to accrue talent. Multi-year rebuilding should be done with a plan in mind. This plan should involve taking the most dominant defensive player in football at a crucial position. It's a rare opportunity. Passing it up is shortsighted.
1. Things change a whole lot in one year. If I remember correctly, Suh might have been a top ten pick last year. But he really gained the "elite" term this year. Marvin Austin (North Carolina) or Allen Bailey (Miami) could have monster seasons and become "elite" prospects. 2. Bradford is a much better prospect than Locker or Mallet. Locker is very athletic but still quite raw. Mallett has a cannon arm but has no mobility. Who knows how these two progress (or regress) in a year.

3. Bradford is the closest thing to a "safe" pick at QB since Eli Manning. He is surprisingly athletic, great mechanics, amazing accuracy and a strong enough arm to make all the necessary throws. He's smart and will be a good locker room presence. The pro day showed that he's fully recovered from his injury. He's bulked up and looks stronger than before.

4. Obviously you like Suh a lot more than Bradford. I think they're both worthy of the top pick. Bradford's position makes him the right pick for me. I think we have differing philosophies on this. I like building a team around a QB. The Rams already have their franchise tackle and RB. To me QB is the most appropriate pick. I'm getting the impression that QB is one of the last positions you'd like to fill when building a team. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

5. The Rams could take Brian Price (UCLA) or Lamarr Houston (Texas) in rounds 2-3. Spags is a great defensive coach. He could turn some later round prospects into solid starters.

Great couple of posts by Bob Magaw. :thumbup:

 
bradford's highlights...

http://sooners.fandome.com/video/103052/Sam-Bradford-2007/

below are some of my comments excerpted from a thread exchange on a rams homer board...

based on his highlights, he handled pressure well...

"based on the comments of some of those down on bradford, and imo unduly risk-averse...

you would think on every play bradford had 10 seconds to get rid of the ball, and he was never even touched...

i saw him get hit on a lot of plays*, and he kept his eyes downfield, delivering the ball with uncanny accuracy, hitting the receiver in stride where they could run THROUGH the ball and explode after catch... also in spots where only the receiver could get it... there were also times when receivers were covered and not just running wild and crazy open, there were some plays he had to fit it in a tight window and split several converging defenders...

the more i see of him, i think he is one of the most accurate passers i've seen coming up in the past decade (at a comparable stage of their career, of course), and it isn't just hyperbole (EDIT/ADD - independent scout russ lande recently called bradford the most accurate QB he has ever scouted).

* of course these are highlights, and maybe he did just get hit a few times a game... but when he was hit, he was impressive, imo."

____________________________________________________________

on the assertion that, because oklahoma ran a lot of shotgun, bradford probably wasn't good in drop back...

"is it possible that bradford was good at dropback (in practice and limited game action), but better in shotgun, and this enabled the whole offense to perform at a higher level.

you should flip the question around... bradford nearly broke grossman's frosh/soph combined TD record (55)... his freshman year... even if he was competent at dropping back, why would you make changes to an offense that was clearly doing so well?"

_____________________________________________________________

above discussion/debate continues in an expanded form...

Q - "I agree, he is better in the shotgun, but if he is going to the rams, he will play in an offense designed to start from under center. If the rams start using more shotgun to help Bradford it greatly reduces the effectivness of their best offensive weapon, S. Jackson.

I also don't think OU should have changed their offense. Who can argue with the results. But it's the same argument with Tebow and Florida. Tebow should have worked on his throwing motion, but Florida was doing so well, why change it. The colleges won games (their job), but they didn't best prepare their QBs for NFL success."

A - "i think i understood what you meant, but you also expanded/elaborated on some other things, which could also be a misnomer, so thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

above, i was responding in a logical (pedantic? :yucky: ) manner to your chain of reasoning that because they went away from shotgun... you were willing to bet he didn't do drop back as well... and from that, it appears he wasn't good at it. the end statement doesn't flow or derive NECESSARILY from your premise... you agreed they shouldn't have changed their offense, so there could be other explanations. just because he may be better at shotgun, doesn't mean he is (or will be) bad at dropback.

miss universe may be hotter than the #2 runner-up... but #2 is still gorgeous. bill gates is no longer richest man in the world (that would be a mexican telco magnate), but he is still very rich. again, it isn't necessarily a rigid binary distinction... attributes can (and in fact in almost all cases i can think of, DO! :) ) exist along a continuum.

as to the relative pro preparation of bradford, tebow & other QBs from a more pro-style offense (say, clausen?), i would echo the comment... who can argue with the results? certainly bradford and tebow aren't comparable cases.

unlike tebow (or clausen), bradford is the virtually unanimous #1 QB... brandt compared him to secretariat well before the pro day in terms of his separation from his peers in the QB class of 2010. i believe casserly polled something like 20 teams, and it was again basically unanimous that bradford was the clear choice among the QB prospects... DESPITE clausen running a pro style offense (maybe purported personality, leadership, intangibles concerns downgraded him on on OVERALL basis in the scouts estimation?)...

tebow is a very polarizing and divisive player... he could go in the 1st, but most likely in back half if he does... imo 2nd is more likely... some scouts wouldn't be surprised if he falls further. clearly he is a physical specimen and athlete for the QB position... his intangibles are off the charts... which is why a team and possibly several teams will/would take a chance on him... almost everybody agrees that it will probably be a longer transition for him, and his prospective team willl probably have to be very patient with him... it might be a 2-3 season project to groom him into a starting-caliber NFL QB... & it is a very real risk that he never gets there... obviously this could be said of nearly all QBs to a degree... the key distinction is that tebow has an extremely technically/mechanically flawed delivery. holmgren recently said (i think) that this is extremely hard, and one of the most difficult things, to correct and drastically modify a natural throwing motion...

but the "proof" is in the respective QB rankings and grades... whatever concerns scouts may have about bradford not dropping back a lot pale compared to the mechanical flaws of tebow (in which case i absolutely agree with you urban meyer did him a disservice in NFL preparation, or lack thereof... than again, he had the opportunity to have his overall constellation of traits showcased on the national stage... maybe with a lesser team like wichita state, even if a really dilgent and conscientious QB coach had refined his motion, but it was still not up to par with the top prospects, and he languished in obscurity, he might be drafted even lower, or not at all? but agree best of all would have been if he was at florida, and he had got better QB coaching, leading to a more technically refined and mecanically textbook delivery)...

for clausen to have the obvious scheme advantage in terms of pro preparation, and still be the virtually unanimously lesser graded QB prospect, could speak to a few things... clearly the scouts are more impressed with bradford OVERALL, and that no doubt includes things like accuracy and intangibles... the scouts are not as worried that bradford can transition to a more pro style attack, as they are that clausen suffers in comparison in other key areas (physical/mental/emotional), such that his "head start" in terms of more advanced scheme-related NFL preparation, won't carry him very far in the long run, and won't compensate for the talent/intangible disparity, once bradford gets up to speed.

* imo, when a reputable scout like mayock states that in his estimation, he is franchise caliber, he is not just saying that because he throws pretty passes in shorts at his pro day... i take this as an OVERALL grade... he has looked at his physical traits, intangibles, skills, broken down film extensively, and looked at his OVERALL body of work. he doesn't seem to be overly concerned that some difficulties transitioning to a more sophisticated, multi-read attack will be a deathblow to his career.

____________________________________________________________

more on concerns that bradford doesn't have an extensive body of work and film by which to evaluate his drop back skills... and how this makes him dangerously uncertain and risky to project how his skills will translate to the next level...

"if he fared well, in albeit limited opps, is there reason to assume he would fail catastrophically given more chances?

maybe he would improve given more pratice, if, by all acounts, he is a hard worker, disciplined, etc. if anything, this seems more likely, imo... but i don't see any clear reason to assume the contrary... not sure if you ARE assuming this, but it seemed so in the statement that.. by the fact (conceded) that oklahoma didn't have bradford drop back more probably meant he wasn't very good at it... which again doesn't follow conclusively from your premise, and arguably could have more likely explanations, and could be an unnecessarily pessimistic and unwarranted interpretation of the "facts" and visual evidence.

to use a maybe poor example... if you saw a few highlights of chris johnson blowing by defenders for a 40-60 yard run... would you need more evidence that he is really really fast (even if you didn't know he ran a 4.24 40 at the combine - tied deion sanders for fastest ever?)."

____________________________________________________________

* edit/add - good point made by poster at the other board (paraphrasing here... as if the nested parentheticals weren't a giveaway... :) )...

hypothetically, IF WAS was willing to deal a couple 1sts, and another one-two relatively high picks (3rd, ?), as was with the case of the giants paying for manning (and the difference in this case is SD may have been a lot more comfortable with rivers as a "consolation prize" they probaly graded and liked almost equally, than the rams might be with clausen, even if he was there on the clock at 1.4), the rams would be in a great position... relative to WAS... by just taking bradford themselves... :)

in other words, under the respective scenarios, WAS would have to spend three-four picks (including two 1sts, on a 1.4, and next years might be top 10-15?)... STL, on the other hand, would just have to spend one... they will be able to get 2-3 additional players with the picks they WON'T have to spend to land a potential franchise QB.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob, I don't know how you have so much time in the day to post three hundred pages of response, but I salute you for it. =)

the issue i am struggling with, is that we can point to many successful teams that went to the playoffs & even the super bowl, with ordinary DTs. it seems harder to me, to advance with an inferior QB (CHI with grossman & BAL with dilfer a couple recent contra-indicators to my premise, though)...
You say inferior QB’s; I say journeyman free agent veterans. =p In the last 20 years, here’s a list of non-superstar QBs that have made it to the Super Bowl. Obviously, some are debateable, but I think it’s a fair point. XXV - Jeff Hostetler, New York Giants - West Virginia (29) XXVI - Mark Rypien, Washington Redskins - Washington State (30) XXIX - Stan Humphries, San Diego Chargers - NE Louisiana (29)XXX - Neil O'Donnell, Pittsburgh Steelers - Maryland (29)XXXIII - Chris Chandler, Atlanta Falcons - Washington (33)XXXIV - Steve McNair, Tennessee Titans - Alcorn State (26)XXXV - Trent Dilfer, Baltimore Ravens - Fresno State (28) XXXV - Kerry Collins, New York Giants - Penn State (28)XXXVII - Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Florida State (34) XXXVII - Rich Gannon, Oakland Raiders - Delaware (37)XXXVIII - Jake Delhomme, Carolina Panthers - Louisiana-Lafayette (29)XL - Matt Hasselbeck, Seattle - Boston College (30)XLI - Rex Grossman, Chicago Bears - Florida (26)
1) QB at least or arguably greater need. the rams are so bad, things have degenerated to the level that virtually all positions are equally bad, and of need (obviously, some positions are more important than others, and positions like DB, interior OL, TE, FB don't get drafted #1 overall)...
I feel that the Rams are bad enough that they should 1) draft elite talent at #1, and that they’re better served by taking 2) elite talent that is a lesser gamble.Suh is an elite DT prospect. This is not a case of “oh, we need a DT, we should take one.” No, this is a chance at a dominant performer at a position of sore need that could drastically alter our success on defense. Against Texas, Suh had 4.5 sacks, 7 tackles for loss, 12 total tackles, two hurries. On the season, he led the team in tackles (82; led for the second consecutive season), tackles for loss (23 for a total of -92 yards) and hurries (24). He also ranked second on the team with 10 pass breakups, one interception, one forced fumble, and three blocked kicks. He followed this up with a dominant combine performance in which, in my opinion, he severely outperformed Gerald McCoy and established himself as clearly the #1 prospect.
2) QB is also a position difficult to find elite prospects. some think bradford is the best prospect at the position in a few years, and in more specific attributes (such as accuracy), maybe one of the best in past decade
I disagree. I think that we’re constantly hearing QBs touted as elite, even when they’re simply good. Many thought Bradford wasn’t the best prospect before the 2009 draft, having him ranked behind Stafford. Then, we had many people that thought Stafford wasn’t even as good as Sanchez. Are they all elite prospects? What about Ryan? Flacco? Seems like every year there are good prospects coming out. Moreover, some perceive Clausen listed as a better prospect than Bradford, because of his immersion in a pro-style offense, his success against formidable pass rushes (compared to Bradford’s plenty-of-time OL), his success overall on a worse team, and his toughness while playing hurt. People complain about his brashness, but it serves Philip Rivers pretty well and Clausen is seen as incredibly competitive and driven to win. In fact, it seems very much like a Rivers->Manning debate at times. (Clausen in 2009: 68% completion rate--higher than Bradford’s, 28 td’s, 4 interceptions, with a supporting cast not nearly as strong as Bradford’s)Conversely, in 2010, we have a rare, elite DT prospect. I’m not alone in this; many scouting services have Bradford ranked behind Suh as a pro prospect. Some call Suh the best DT prospect they’ve seen in a decade. Where Bradford isn’t clearly #1, Suh is.
3) who says it is likely we will be in position to get a franchise QB next year... or that we are assured of being in the top 5 of the draft next year (bottom five team)... how many wins/losses separate a bottom five & bottom 8 team?
Yes, it’s certainly hypothetical. Yet the chances of us having another shot at a top QB are higher than our having a chance to fill a gaping, glaring hole in our defense. You assume a QB wouldn't be available if we "slipped" to picking 8th, yet that's a spot that Clausen is likely to be available this year, while the top DT prospects will be off the board. I'll reiterate something, though:I don't have any trouble with Bradford, really. I don't think he's terrible, I think he's a fine QB prospect. However, he has question marks. These have existed since his days at OU, and before his second injury in 2009. And at #1, I tend to look for the person that fits a need and has fewer question marks. Also, something important to recognize is that the ground is littered with both DT prospects *and* QB prospects that failed. Arguably, a failed QB prospect sets a franchise back even further. Failure saddles a club with an exorbitant contract, which is particularly relevant considering the possibility of a rookie salary cap next year. If we have football. =p
 
you make good points, lyon...

i respect your take, and am not necessarily debating just you on bradford, but more the position, which is contentious... there just don't seem to be as many pro-suh advocates since the pro day! :confused: you are playing point for suh, so get the brunt of the other side of the debate...

some of the QBs on your list are excellent contra-indicators to my position...

you admitted some are questionable... i wouldn't call hasselbeck journeyman-caliber when he was in his prime... SEA won NFC west for close to a half decade in a row... gannon was a journeyman, literally, earlier in his career (warner originally a UFA, and reborn after being a reclamation project off the scrap heap), but hard to count on getting guys off the street or in trades that perform like this... more often than not, they don't, especially at that age... mcnair was a co-MVP with mcnair one year... without going one by one, some of these teams had pretty good defenses, and the rams are far from that, even with suh... i guess by my own rationale that a team can be turned around quickly (few seasons) if they draft well, same could be said on defense... but better they finish, lower they pick for QB down the road.

how many sacks did suh have before playoffs? :thumbup: i think it was 3-4... not dominant stats, as a PASS RUSHER, he may be in run defense... sometimes sapp is invoked as a comp, but mayock thinks mccoy is better OVERALL prospect (he did leading up to combine, haven't checked lately) because he is more explosive and better penetrator from inside... again, how can suh be best in a decade, and not even be #1 over mccoy THIS YEAR... i agree most scouts grade suh #1 overall, but i have a lot of respect for mayock...

we will just have to agree to disagree on bradford's status beyond this class... i have heard a few scouts say he is best in past "several years" (savage), brandt said best workout he has seen with aikman, & his accuracy reminds him of manning, mayock said one of best workouts in past decade (he also said jamarcus russell's was better :lmao: ), russ lande said he is the most accurate QB he has ever scouted... as for relative to clausen, brandt compared the distance between bradford and rest of pack (clausen included) to that of "secretariat" and rest of the field... in an informal poll, casserly claimed it was unanimous, and something like 20 out of 20 teams (front office, coaches, scouts?) that preferred bradford? some players are polarizing and divisive... i don't think bradford is among scouts, but he seems to be among rams fans (so much is at stake, i agree with you there... than again, they can't be any worse than they already are... might delay rebuild for a year?)... anyways, in cases like this, you just have to take a stand and choose who you are going to believe... :) i could change my mind, but haven't seen any compelling reasons to be as worried about some of the question marks (health, scheme, etc) as the detractors are...

i am curious, when the doctors sign off on him, and say he isn't any more likely to sustain a similar injury (or only a slight increased risk?), i assume your concern doesn't reflect you think medical is being intentionally deceptive... maybe that they could be mistaken or otherwise incompetent... it is possible they are wrong, but when multiple doctors look at this highly graded a prospect, i think it is doubtful he is really a ticking time bomb and a catastrophic medical risk... what would acceptable increased risk be to you? 10% (over his CAREER)... more, less?

i'd trade proven commodity like rivers for bradford in a heartbeat... but i realize you were making the comparison between rivers and clausen for personality reasons... there have been rumblings that clausen isn't well liked by his teammates... no way to substantiate them (bradford imo does come off as more impressive in interviews, and "looks the part" more), but sometimes where there is smoke, there is fire... would you agree there are no similar rumblings about bradford's leadership & intangibles? maybe it is disinformation from teams that want him, to "spook" those ahead of them into passing so he falls into their laps?

what if we "slip" below spot 8? and i haven't conceded i would be OK with clausen... :) not all scouts are in agreement clausen is franchise caliber (should be interesting to see where he goes, to get more of a feel for how other teams around the league view his stature and prospects)...

there is no "ONE WAY" to build a franchise... i concede rams could get suh & a good QB next year (MAYBE on latter)... they also can get bradford this year, and he might be better than what they would get next... agree they almost certainly won't get a DT as good as suh, but they might get a very good one...

my sense (purely opinion) is that with bradford, in a year or so, they could be closer to being respectable on offense, than they will be on defense with suh... longer term, if the rams draft well, maybe it doesn't matter either way... conversely, if they continue to draft as poorly as in some recent seasons, there is probably no hope either way...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
since it looks like bradford is the #1 overall pick, attention shifts to rounds 2-3...

cross-posted from other board, picking up in mid-thread...

another poster...

"Round 2: Best on our board of DE/ WR/ TE

We need a pass rush DE, a #1 WR, and a pass catching threat at TE. Since we don't know who will slide or how the Rams have their board stacked, it's really hard to guess what the choice will be.

But Bradford is going to need weapons and the best one we could give him is a good TE and the best is Gresham. And that is a distinct possibility.

But there's really only 1 WR that interests me and that is Benn. He's like Michael Irvin or Anquan Boldin. He can be a #1 WR. We have utterly no need for any more #2 WR type guys. I don't think Tate can be a #1, and Bryant will be long gone.

TE for me is between Gresham and Hernandez. Gresham is better all around and it is iffy that he'll slide into round 2 but some mocks say he might. Of all the remaining TEs I think Hernandez is going to be a real playmaker. Slightly undersized but really strong, and is so versatile you could line him up on the outside and have him run routes. Great TE bubble screen and shovel pass guy.

Pass rush DE trumps anything else. And there just might be a real good tweener DE/LB at the top of round 2. Should Dunlop slide, they're going to have to consider him. Graham might be there, Hughes probably.

Round 3 will be offense. I don't think they'd go WR here because the #1 types are gone. Hernandez could wind up here, maybe another TE. I really doubt DE because the real good ones will be gone. The wild card could be McCluster. This guy is Percy Harvin with even more quickness. Talk about a weapon."

____________________________________________________

response...

i think we see things similarly (i know we do on bradford!)...

also really like the idea of gresham, and that it seems unlikely he drops that far...

if a very highly graded LB were to drop, like weatherspoon, that could be very tempting... he is one of the top 2 prospects at the position, with borderline top 10 LB mcclain... what if a guy like mays drops, athletically, he probably has top 10-15 ability (hopefully more clarity on atogwe by draft - could he be traded?)... it seems far fetched that pouncey or iupati could drop, i would be less tempted to goof around with a trade down and just jump on the blue chip talent)...

haven't scouted benn, but he sounds intriguing... bruce & holt weren't exactly smurfs, but they were more technicians, finnesse types... we have needed a bigger WR (handy in red zone, opens up field by using size advantage on sideline, doing the hard job working the middle of the field... how about blocking in the run game (would be nice for a change from that position)? he won't need to be irvin/boldin (though those comps are tantalizing) to be massive upgrade at WR1... one move, upgrading a starter, has a ripple through effect as a double upgrade (benn upgrade over avery, avery potential upgrade over old WR2). we know they were trying to get nicks (evidence of good scouting by us), but laurinaitis was nice consolation prize... he fills a hole thre for most of a decade, since fletcher departed. that said, i would trade him for nicks in a heart beat... i think he has star potential, and hard to find guys like that, than very good LBs (which he is, but he isn't willis or beason good)...

it would be nice after bradford, to get an offense & defense picks in rounds two & three... if the board says get both offense, i don't think they will hesitate to do that... i do think if they go defense in round 2 (a distict possibility, DE or L, they definitely go offense in three... RB like dwyer or mccluster, TE like gonzalez... whereas if they get gresham or benn in 2nd, i could still see them looking at TE or RB... actually, if their second were benn, i could see RB trumping TE... if they had the above three choices, even if they hadn't got TE in round 2 (instead get a defensive player, or falling OL, etc), it would seeminly be hard to pass ono dwyer or mccluster. summing this part up... i don't see us spending both 2-3 pick on defense (if no trade downs)... getting on of each, or getting two on offense (this could include OL), seems about equally likely to me...

this might disappoint some defense-centric thinking fans...

everybody agrees we have to get better on defense...

but we HAVE to surround bradford with upgraded weapons and protect him better, or it was all for naught...

upgrading offense does help defense...

sustained drives allows defense to rest (been a long time since this was case), wins time of possession battle, keeps dangerous offenses OFF the field, where no matter how good they are, or how bad your defense is, they can't hurt you! ...

helps win field position battle, which should translate to more TDs & FGs...

good offense can help put the game away late...

getting lead entirely changes the complexion and tenor of the game, from the standpoint of OUR defense... it can force teams to become one-dimensional the DL can pin their ears back and get after QB, not worrying as much about run... that can lead to drive-killing sacks, and force QBs into more INTs...

back to draft plan in rounds 2-3... there are obvious advantages that recommend churning the 2 (and maybe 3, too), into extra picks... but i would rather have a few stars (2-3) and solid depth (OL & DL rotation?), than a half dozen mediocre talents. 2010 draft could be doubly impactful and nicely aligned for us... we are in a position to add extra picks with coveted 2.1 (+ high 3-4), in a year that is by all accounts a very deep draft...

but being a deep draft has repercussion (almost said ramifications) in a dual sense...

1 - we can turn the 2 & 3 into later 2 & 3, plus extra 3 & 4? could secure extra starter or two, or key depth, on team with many holes...

2 - an elite talent spills into the 2.1 region & 3.1 (shonn greene went there last year)... we have the opportunity to get 1-2 more potential stars added to bradford, which might not be the case in a less deep draft.

hernandez sounds intriguing in 3rd... IF we don't get mccluster...

dwyer would be better if jackson is hurt, and to groom for future "feature RB", mcluster could help us in multiple ways, and may have bigger OVERALL impact (especially if jackson is healthy, he is still in his prime)... he could still spell jackson, provide a different skill set that could give defense fits, be wildcat QB, receiving weapon, & ace returner to elevate our ST (which again, has massive ripple through impact on offense AND defense, by helping win field position battle - the poor ST legacy of martz, was an achilles heel for many years, and still returners not exactly a strength... this was one of the key pieces of the puzzle of our in retrospect seemingly inexorable decline since supr bowl years around a decade ago). harvin would be a great player to be comparable to, and he himself is lightning quick, if mccluster is quicker... harvin isn't big by any stretch (less than 6', sub-200 lbs), but he has a barrell chest and thick upper body, is strong for his size, has great balance, and plays bigger than his 190-195 lbs (?)...

is mccluster listed at about 170? not sure if he has gained weight, or is capable of it... on the bright side, desean jackson was downgraded by many teams for being about 170-175 a few years ago... he will never be big... but with the new rules that favor offense, and quick, elusive WRs, he looked like a man among boys last year, and one of the more dangerous deep threats and RAC weapons (with the bigger miles austin) in the league. mccluster plays RB and not WR (like harvin and jackson... harvin did play both at florida, of course), but he would be used as receiving weapon a lot... would he instantly be better than jackson, and our best receiving RB since faulk in his prime? this is a PHI offense, and they had westbrook... the second best receiving RB of his era, after faulk... it seems like a good fit...

gresham and mccluster would comprise duelling safety valves, giving bradford multiple options to get the ball out of his hand quickly, and not wait for the slow developing 19 yard dig routes favored by martz, which combined with his reckless disregard for QB protection, almost destroyed warner & may have bulger...

* after relooking at things...

i would be very happy with gresham (assuming knee checks out)/benn in 2nd & mccluster in 3rd...

would also be very OK with DE/LB, or a surprise OL dropping, at 2...

unless RIDICULOUS value at another position falls to them in 3rd, hope they have that round earmarked for RB like dwyer or mccluster (they wanted greene with 3.2 last year, but got sniped by recent trade up artists NYJ)... maybe they could trade down from 3.1, and STILL get one of these, if they are both still available... if one is gone, maybe they are more likely to not trade down and pull the trigger?

 
A guy I really like in later rounds is Jordan Shipley. He's got good hands and runs clean routes. Not the most athletic guy but I could see him being productive in the short to intermediate game. St Louis could probably get him in the 3rd or 4th round.

 
A guy I really like in later rounds is Jordan Shipley. He's got good hands and runs clean routes. Not the most athletic guy but I could see him being productive in the short to intermediate game. St Louis could probably get him in the 3rd or 4th round.
I like him too, but Avery is their slot wr.
 
Viewing Bradford/Suh Through the Lens of Positional Scarcity

on a percentage basis, even if suh is technically higher graded for his position, for him to attain top 5 DT level (pro bowl caliber), he has about a 10% chance of that happening (not 60* starting DTs, because of a number of 3-4 teams in the league... not a half, maybe something like between a third and a quarter)...

for bradford to be a top 8 QB (TWELVE teams make the playoffs! ), if we assume he keeps the job (no different assumption than for suh), he has about a 25% chance (8 of 32) of that happening...

this touches on the important subject of positional scarcity, which imo hasn't been brought up enough...

usually you need to draft QBs... the best YOUNG ones usually don't change hands (favre did, but he is 40 now... mcnabb was a mirror situation, though he is about 33, not old, but not young... cutler was the exception, due to unusual irreconcilable personal differences). very hard to obtain in trades. some of the premier DTs appear more fungible recently... haynesworth and jenkins changed teams recently... haynesworth may be again soon, but that could also stem not from talent, but reflects on personal issues.

* there are actually more in the pool of rotational DT talent that plays.

most teams don't rotate their QBs (ARI sort of did with leinart/warner briefly, wildcat teams like MIA exceptions)...

you don't want a bottom half of the league QB... that is good enough to be average, and maybe miss the playoffs, and not be very competitive if you make it.

with a top 8-10-12 QB (12 playoff teams), these teams have a decided advantage.

some have suggested that it would be a waste to get bradford without having the pieces in place first...

but some key pieces are in place already, or could be... jackson, jason brown one of the prizes of the '09 free agent class... it is far too early to write smith off... hopefully between avery, robinson, gibson they can find ONE starting WR... we need to think beyond one year in drafting a QB... this year, even if bradford is taken first overall as expected, that will leave them with at least a couple potentially additional impact picks (rounds 2-3... gravy if more than 2-3 starters in a draft... better drafting teams can acquire key depth and even starters in mid-rounds... our picks there were getting cut and are out of the league)... they could go defense on both, but there is a 2/3 chance it will be split or two offense... so more likely 1-2 on offense... that could take the form of a WR, receiving TE, OL &/or backup/complementary RB upgrade.

if we draft high next year, that is another 2-3 potential impact players, and maybe additional depth if we draft well. plus next free agency period (if there is a season) should be much better.

in just TWO years from now, there will have been THREE drafts and three free agent cycles... we could completely turn over parts of the offense and defense, reshaping and transformig the entire team... building AROUND bradford (if jackson slows down near 30, and we struggle to find a replacement as good, we would even have the luxury of transitioning the offense to one with a greater emphasis on the pass if we want to)... rather than trying to assemble a perfect team first... positions like RG & RT can be backfilled with lower pedigree picks... same with SLB, safety if atogwe goes. those positions can also be plugged in cheaply with free agents... even elite DTs like pat williams, kris jenkins and haynesworth change hands.

a lot of fans were beaten down by the interminably long and nightmarish decade of bungled drafts by zygmunt/shaw & martz/linehan... adding insult to injury, things have culminated into a past three year implosion trend, winning 3, 2 & 1 games... conservatively (not assuming freakish turnarounds like ATL & MIA in 2008... parcells has done it everywhere), with better drafting (or even my suggestion, a stochastic system, augmenting the proverbial monkey and a dartboard with heuristic screens... for instance - don't put guys like crouch, wroten, byrd & incognito on the FREAKIN dartboard!!!) this team could get turned around in a relative hurry in the next few years...

another problem with bad drafting, which is correctable by the current regime, is bad positional coaching... the rams had a poor record of internal development for years, and it caught up with us... the hope is the incumbent does much better.

 
First thing that comes to mind is that NO team has the talent level of 1-15. So something seriously went wrong. Either the coaching staff / GM is terrible or there were a ton of injuries. Did Spag struggle with running the team last year? That's the first place I'd look. It doesn't matter who they pick if they have the wrong coach. is he in over his head? I don't know, don't follow the team.

 
I thought Robinson would be the Rams #1, he seems to have all the tools for the role, size, speed and decent hands. I would think a WR would not be a priority with a few other positions being clearly weaker. Right now you have:

Robinson

Avery

Foster

Gibson

Ammendola

Burton

Kent

I would think they could find 3 guys out of this, Avery does seem like a solid slot guy and Robinson/Gibson/Burton should make up the other 2 positions. You also have a bunch of young guys, I would think the jury may still be out on them? I watched a couple early games last year and I thought Robinson looks pretty good, but I am not a Rams fan and this is just an outsiders view of things.

You have a beast at RB, and obviously need a QB, but I would hope they also address the O-line if it was my team.

 
If the Redskins are hot for Bradford, how about a Campbell/#4 for the #1 trade?

I really think Campbell has gotten a raw deal in his time in the league.

Plus, does StL really want to pay that much money to the #1 pick?
It would take more than Campbell I think. If McNabb is only worth a 2nd round pick, Campbell is like a 4th or 5th round pick. I think the Rams take Bradford and think hard about taking Gresham if he's there in the 2nd round.
Campbell plus the #4 pick, I meant. And for the life of me, I don't get teams not jumping all over McNabb if the pricetag is only a 2nd rounder. I know he's due a lot of money, but that's because he's pretty darn GOOD.
According to the NFL Draft Pick chart to go from #4 to the #1 pick is a 1200 unit difference or the same as the 12th overall pick. No way the Rams take Cambell and the 4th for the 1st.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php
Nobody talks about the draft value chart anymore other than draftniks. It's a bogus made up chart developed my Jimmy Johnson twenty years ago and has no bearing on the choices made by NFL GM's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
team beat reporter mock...

nice premise...

in this one (JT took bradford), gresham, pouncey, matthews, weatherspoon, jerry hughes all gone in 1st...

WRs benn & thomas (& tate) are there... i am increasingly thinking WR will be the pick in 2nd (gresham if he miraculously drops)... and that rams will be able to trade down if the opportunity presents itself, but not far... i like benn best, but any of these guys would be upgrades opposite avery...

____________________________________________

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/sc-sp...4979,full.story

Sam Farmer’s NFL mock draft 2.0

Sports writers from first-round cities make their picks

Tribune newspapers

1:07 p.m. CDT, April 10, 2010

And now a word from my colleagues.

To piece together my mock draft version 2.0, I simulated a draft by calling, in order, newspaper writers who cover the first-round teams on a daily basis.

Some results were surprising. Center Maurkice Pouncey went earlier than I expected, USC's Taylor Mays and Everson Griffen fell out of the first round and Dez Bryant was the only receiver chosen.

Scribes, you are on the clock:

1. Rams: QB Sam Bradford, Oklahoma. (pick by Jim Thomas, St. Louis Post-Dispatch) "They're doing everything but stitching his name on his jersey."

2. Lions: DT Ndamukong Suh, Nebraska. (Nick Cotsonika, Detroit Free Press) "Suh is the smart, multidimensional and productive player the Lions want."

3. Buccaneers: DT Gerald McCoy, Oklahoma. (Rick Stroud, St. Petersburg Times) "If McCoy or Suh is there, the Buccaneers will run to the commissioner with the card."

4. Redskins: OT Russell Okung, Oklahoma State. (Rick Maese, Washington Post) " Donovan McNabb will have someone to protect his blind side, a luxury Jason Campbell didn't often have."

5. Chiefs: S Eric Berry, Tennessee. (Adam Teicher, Kansas City Star) "It's been close to 10 years since the Chiefs have had a playmaking safety in the secondary."

6. Seahawks: OT Trent Williams, Oklahoma. (Danny O'Neil, Seattle Times) "His athleticism makes him a better fit than Iowa's Brian Bulaga for Alex Gibbs' zone-blocking scheme."

7. Browns: QB Jimmy Clausen, Notre Dame. (Mary Kay Cabot, Cleveland Plain Dealer) "The Browns could try to trade the pick, draft Clausen and trade him or draft him and keep him. They also like Colt McCoy."

8. Raiders: OT Bruce Campbell, Maryland. (Jerry McDonald, Oakland Tribune) "There's a 50-50 shot they take Campbell, but they'd probably take Trent Williams over him."

9. Bills: OT Brian Bulaga, Iowa. (Mark Gaughan, Buffalo News) "The left tackle position torpedoed the entire team last year. The Bills would be happy to get any of the top guys."

10. Jaguars: ILB Rolando McClain, Alabama. (Vito Stellino, Florida Times-Union) "The Jaguars are short on linebackers. Question is, is McClain better than the best defensive end on the board?"

11. Broncos: C Maurkice Pouncey, Florida. (Lindsay Jones, Denver Post) "This is a bit high for a center, but the Broncos don't have one. If they were to line up today, they'd have nobody to snap the ball."

12. Dolphins: WR Dez Bryant, Oklahoma State. (Omar Kelly, South Florida Sun Sentinel) "Dez Bryant is looking for a father figure, and Bill Parcells wouldn't mind being one. The Dolphins need a difference maker at receiver."

13. 49ers: CB Joe Haden, Florida. (Matt Maiocco, Santa Rosa Press Democrat) "The 49ers need help in the secondary, and their corners aren't great. Haden would be a good pick at a high-profile position of need."

14. Seahawks: RB C.J. Spiller, Clemson. (O'Neil) "Seattle is one of four teams not to have a 1,000-yard rusher in any of the past four seasons. Spiller would be an instant upgrade at the position."

15. Giants: DE Jason Pierre-Paul, South Florida. (Ralph Vacchiano, New York Daily News) "He's a freakish athlete, and the Giants have some uncertainty at the position, especially with Osi Umenyiora unhappy."

16. Titans: DE Derrick Morgan, Georgia Tech. (Jim Wyatt, The Tennessean) "The Titans are in desperate need of an impact player at the position after losing Kyle Vanden Bosch in free agency."

17. 49ers: OT Anthony Davis, Rutgers. ( Dan Brown, San Jose Mercury News) "The 49ers sorely need offensive line help, and Mike Singletary's presence will help allay concerns about Davis' character."

18. Steelers: G Mike Iupati, Idaho. (Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) "The Steelers need to start getting some studs on their offensive line, and Iupati certainly is that. He's a safe pick for them."

19. Falcons: OLB Sean Weatherspoon, Missouri. (D. Orlando Ledbetter, Atlanta Journal-Constitution) "With Mike Peterson turning 34, the Falcons need a run-and-hit linebacker who's adept in coverage."

20. Texans: S Earl Thomas, Texas. (Jerome Solomon, Houston Chronicle) "The Texans really need some help in the secondary, and Thomas has the type of ballhawking skills they could use."

21. Bengals: TE Jermaine Gresham, Oklahoma. (Joe Reedy, Cincinnati Enquirer) "Tight end is a real weakness for the Bengals. They need a guy who can both block and stretch the field."

22. Patriots: OLB Sergio Kindle, Texas. (Karen Guregian, Boston Herald) "Kindle fits the physical prototype the Patriots like for an OLB/DE. They also like Michigan's Brandon Graham."

23. Packers: CB Patrick Robinson, Florida State. (Bob McGinn, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) " Al Harris is 35 and coming off reconstructive knee surgery; Charles Woodson is 33. Robinson fills a real need."

24. Eagles: CB Kyle Wilson, Boise State. (Jeff McLane, Philadelphia Inquirer) "With Sheldon Brown gone to Cleveland, the Eagles need a cornerback who can step right into the starting lineup."

25. Ravens: DT Jared Odrick, Penn State. (Jamison Hensley, Baltimore Sun) "The Ravens need youth on the defensive line, and Odrick would fit right into their 3-4 scheme."

26. Cardinals: DT Dan Williams, Tennessee. (Kent Somers, Arizona Republic) "The Cardinals have been searching for a 3-4 nose tackle ever since Ken Whisenhunt arrived. They need somebody who can hold the middle."

27. Cowboys: OT Charles Brown, USC. (Clarence Hill, Fort Worth Star-Telegram) "With Flozell Adams gone, the Cowboys have a hole at the position. Brown not only fills an area of need, but he fits in that draft slot."

28. Chargers: RB Ryan Mathews, Fresno State. (Jay Paris, North County Times) "LaDainian Tomlinson is gone, and the Chargers have a void at running back. They'll hope to get Alabama DT Terrence Cody in the second."

29. Jets: DE Brandon Graham, Michigan. (Rich Cimini, New York Daily News) "One of the problems the Jets had on defense was they had to blitz a lot of guys to get pressure. They need a pass rusher."

30. Vikings: CB Devin McCourty, Rutgers. (Judd Zulgad, Minneapolis Star Tribune) "Depth at corner is a problem for the Vikings, who have had health problems at the position. They really like McCourty."

31. Colts: DT Brian Price, UCLA. (Mike Chappell, Indianapolis Star) "The Colts failed in their attempt to get better on the defensive line last offseason. The bid continues this year."

32. Saints: OLB Jerry Hughes, TCU. (Mike Triplett, New Orleans Times-Picayune) "Hughes might be a 'tweener for a 4-3 defense, but defensive coordinator Gregg Williams will find a way to fit him in."

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top