2010 Draft Strategy

by CaliRamMan on Dec 9, 2009 2:58 AM CST Comment 29 comments

With the way this draft is shaping out my normal strategy for how a rebuilding of a team should happen, has changed slightly.

Due to speculation of a rookie salary cap amongst some other changes, the stud younger classmen are more than likely going to opt out of their last year of eligibility and enter the draft. If you haven't figured it out yet, that is leading to a talent filled draft. One rich of potential and depth throughout the early and later rounds. During this phase of rebuilding, I am a firm believer of the Belichick form of rebuilding. Grab as many early round picks as possible. In fact, if you paid any attention to this last draft, he continuesly traded down for 2nd round pick after 2nd round pick. This coming draft will be no different, for I think that New England is sitting on 4 picks in the first 2 rounds. Brilliant really. They did the same thing this last draft, and can't help but think this is the way every team should model their rebuilding without having to take on the full blown franchise revamping that our lovely Rams are currently undertaking.

Back to this next draft...I have changed my thought process a little bit. Yeah a little wierd, thinking in week 12 how the next draft should pan out, but here we are facing reality. As it plays out right now we have all of our picks and a few extra 5th and 7th rounders sitting in our pockets. Thinking about this, we should either trade down at all available opportunities or pull some ballsie moves. We have all stated at some point to trade down and save money as well as add some extra picks. I like the idea, but I would like us to go beyond that. The year the Saints decided that Rickey Williams was worth trading their entire draft for one man was a deal of the century. This will be a tough year to pull off such a move, but I have a feeling that teams will be willing to give a little more to get a particular player, especially since last years draft left a little to be desired in quality of the draft.

The next possible move is called "ransom" a little move a la San Diego Chargers and Eli Manning. Swoop a player that is well known to be covetted by some of these teams like Washington, Oakland, or any other team that is looking to make an immediate impact and rape them for more picks.

This last move is the one that I am actually suggesting is a bit different than what I would ever want u to do. A little move that the Clevland Browns pulled a couple years back...although they had little success with it...In getting Joe Thomas and Brady Quinn. Trade our 2011 1st rounder to ensure that we have 2 first rounders this coming year in 2010. This talent rich pool has me convinced that we should do whatever we can to maximize our rebuilding process with young talent from this coming draft. The problem is that it wont come cheap, so I say that we give up next years 1st and this years 5th for another 1st this year. Either way, I think this may actually be a draft to look forward to. Who knows what FA will bring, but that and the amount of money we will have next year will determine which roads we choose during the draft. Just food for thought.

Oh and NO to the Clausen as our top 5 pick...please NO. The only other request I have is don't waste a pick on a TE early in the draft. I don't think I can handl that next year.

1 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Draft Strategy

CaliRamMan makes a great point here. There is depth in this draft, and I think the Rams need to take advantage it, and that means not going for the QB in the first round. According to walterfootball.com, which has done a pretty decent job looking at the needs of teams, 5 teams including the Rams will draft a QB in the first round. Take the Rams out of the equation, and that leaves, Jevon Snead (poor year this year), Dan LeFavour, Tony Pike, Colt McCoy, and others available in the second round.

What does that mean?

Go for the SUH-monster in the first round!

Take the best player, and then from there get your WR in the second round in Arrelious Benn or Golden Tate, and in the third round, Dan LeFevour is still available and possibly so is McCoy.

Options are available, but they start with not getting sucked in by shooting for the QB in the first round.

by kickasskeever on Dec 9, 2009 12:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Cali

The flaw in your argument is that the Pats aren’t rebuilding and they haven’t been for about 10 years. The Pats are able to trade down and get more picks because they don’t need high impact, high dollar players to be good. They have all the impact players they need. What they need are good (not great) secondary players to fill the gaps. So, I don’t think adding this strategy really applies to the Rams. We don’t need role-players, we need high impact players to build a core around. Then we can go out and enact the plan you recommend.

With that in mind, I have a question for you (and kickass). Who was the last DT that has turned out to be a true impact player on defense? Warren Sapp during his prime maybe? My point is this, a good or great DT rarely turns a bad defense into a great one. The name of the position lends itself to that role player designation

Now let me reverse the question. Who was the last QB that turned out to be a true impact player on offense? I think you get my point.

Draft Clausen.

by BigMac545 on Dec 9, 2009 1:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

2 words

Albert Haynesworth

It is milk it may be spilled it may be delicious.

by shostag on Dec 9, 2009 1:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lets take a look at how many 1st round draft picks that have been busts for teams already in the recent history:
1. Ryan Leaf (he is a given and lets not even count his failure)
2. Mark Sanchez (still has time to develop, but was predicted to be an immediate impact player)
3. Matt Leinart (still benchwarming for Warner)
4. JaMarcus Russell (enough said)
5. David Carr (destroyed by Texans horrible O-Line)
6. Alex Smith (not exactly Peyton Manning there)
7. Akili Smith (many probably dont remember how bad he was for the Bengals)
8. and there are numerous more from there.

Suh is the best player in this draft. Handsdown. Did you see how he man-handled Texas in the Big 12 Championship? DT is a position of need, and yes there is a risk of bust there also. Glen Dorsey has generally been a bust for the Chiefs, and we almost picked him two years ago. Clausen may very well be a great QB, but the problem is that we have too many pieces to fill to shoot for just one big player. Take the QB first, and not have any WRs for him? Maybe if you get Boldin, you can take the risk, if not, then the Rams need to make sure they can field a team around your franchise QB before throwing 60 million at him again.

Clausen isn’t as mobile as probably the best Rams fit ready QB out there in Jake Looker. Looker has taken a bad team, and caused them to win, yes he has dropped off a little bit as the year has gone on, but he is mobile, perfect size and build, can make the throws, and has shown incredible leadership in the locker room. One thing I will fault Bulger for not having done the last three years.

by kickasskeever on Dec 9, 2009 2:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

First of All...

its Jake Locker. Not Looker. Second of all, Locker isn’t coming out. Third of all no NCAA QB has made the pro-bowl with a career comp % below 60 (Locker’s is 53.3%). He is the next JaMarcus Russell or Kyle Boller.

Winning franchises are not built around DTs. They are built around QBs. We need to draft the best QB we can get in the first round and fill in around him. That includes WRs and there are a TON of good ones on the FA market this year (my personal preference being Miles Austin).

by BigMac545 on Dec 9, 2009 5:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

By the way...

Suh isn’t even close to being the best player in this draft hands down. Scouts Inc. has Eric Berry and Gerald McCoy both ahead of Suh. In terms of overall grades, Suh grades out at a 96 and Clausen grades out at a 95.

by BigMac545 on Dec 9, 2009 5:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why wouldn't Locker come out?

He’s being graded as a first round draft pick, a few teams at the top reportedly are interested in him, and a rookie wage scale could come into affect in 2011. He has little incentive to stay. Plus, why would he want to risk sustaining a season-ending injury like Sam Bradford?

by BruinFanBaby on Dec 9, 2009 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

locker is raw

locker still needs to fix out some flaws he has and by staying at washington with sarkisian in the west coast offense he will be a “perfect” qb

by rams3!!! on Dec 13, 2009 2:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, my bad. Locker not Looker.

Also, by drafting at QB in the first round is not guaranteeing they will become a great QB. Where do you expect to get the great WRs if you are paying 60 million to your QB?

Dallas is going to resign Austin, he is their playmaker right now. Jerry Jones is not going to let him go after letting TO go last year. Roy Williams is a complete bust.

by kickasskeever on Dec 9, 2009 10:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Big Mac

You are wrong on that one. Belichick came out and said that they have to severely REBUILD their defense 2 years ago. Obviously he was anticipating Seau, Bruschi, and Harrison all to retire, but the void Samuel left and then the trading of Seymor the writing was on the wall. And I do consider the rebuilding of your defense to be a “rebuilding phase.” Its just that due to the fact that they have such a quality offense people neglect to see it. Add that to the fact that they used their first 3 picks in last years draft on defensive players, but wait they used their first 3 picks on defensive players in the 2008 draft as well. Keep in mind that is 6 players (all of which were taken in the first 3 rounds, 5 of those in the first 2 rounds) in two years where the defense is addressed. Tell me that is not for rebuilding purposes!!!!!! Maybe you are right, they are looking for these 6 guys to all be bench and fill in players……prob not. The Pats just do it right, with anticipation for the future needs as well as time for development. He is not looking for these guys to be “secondary” players, he realizes that he can get players of quality and maybe a gem or two to fill holes on the team. It is rare to have a team full of all-stars, you need consistency and quality to go along with chemistry.
Right now I think is the best time to enact such a plan. We are hurting all over the field with lack of quality and even worse depth. If we continue to trade down and acquire more and more 2nd and 3rd rounders, then we will have an opportunity at some of these quality players that fall through the cracks in the draft. Then we can fill more voids with quality players and as those needs decrease that is when you fill them with those “special” players of the future.
Apparently you have not read my responses in the past! I have said that the DT position is one of the hardest positions to come out of college and dominate. You go from facing children in college to men in the NFL on those opposing O-lines. Although I do think Suh is something special, I don’t know if he is the best pick for our team. I just don’t think that is DT is te biggest concern with us going into next year with 2 DE’s on our roster, and a lack of quality at LB. I do think however that the picks need to stay on the Def side of the ball.
NO ON CLAUSEN…..The guy puts up great numbers because their defense sucks so bad that the ball ends up back in his hands to play catch up or stay up. It also helps that he had two receivers that adapt their routes so well and have great hands. I don’t know if I think he is our best option.

by CaliRamMan on Dec 9, 2009 8:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Cali

The Pats are not re-building in any since of the word. They maybe had to go out and replace a few older players that retired but the term re-building does not apply to one side of the ball, and it certainly doesn’t apply to teams that have gone 16-0 and 11-5 the past two seasons.

by BigMac545 on Dec 9, 2009 9:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well BigMac

It looks like we will not be agreeing here. I would consider the investment in replacing the majority of the defense as rebuilding, and that would encompass a “sense” of the word, regardless of the record. I don’t believe that a teams record should determine whether a team is rebuilding or not. That is cutting a team short for being able to do it effectively. I thought the first 3 picks for two years straight was pretty damn clear the teams objetive for the draft. Sorry you can’t see it. I still give credit to the Patriots for a job well done, that Defense will be solid in the years to come.

by CaliRamMan on Dec 9, 2009 9:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget that Browns gave up 2nd rounder in addition to 1st rounder to Cowgirls.

by Summer of 99 on Dec 9, 2009 3:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Really?

Albert Haynesworth is the type of player that can turn a crappy D into a good one? Is that why Washington has the 24th ranked rushing D right now? In fact, Washington had the 8th best rush D last year. So, Haynesworth is so good and such a difference maker than they dropped from the top half to the bottom half of the NFL in run D? Good point. What a difference maker.

by BigMac545 on Dec 9, 2009 5:45 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Your arguments don't apply

     First of all Locker is coming out. I would bet my next paycheck on it regardless of what we read.
     Second of all you can’t judge the future performance or impact of any given player because of what has happened in the past at that position. Statistics are hugely overrated, when it comes to these analyses.
     Third, Haynesworth isn’t the problem with the redskns.
      Fourfth, for every draft service who thinks Suh isn’t #1, there are 10 who thinks he is.
      Finally, none of them matter
      I will agree with you on the Pats not being in need of impact players. But they still represent the right way to approach the off-season by trading down. Their magic is making multiple picks and turning those picks into impact players by be better at player analysis than we are. You can’t argue with success.

by dbcouver on Dec 9, 2009 8:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sorry db...

But all signs point to Locker staying in college.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4725350

by BigMac545 on Dec 9, 2009 9:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Did you read your own link

All signs?

by dbcouver on Dec 10, 2009 12:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's funny

That link doesn’t really help your argument. If anything, it makes it sound like Locker is coming out. I do think I heard something a few weeks back about how he had decided to stay in, but maybe that is changing. Who knows…

But a coach being “optimistic” that his QB will return doesn’t mean all signs point to him returning. I think Pete Carrol was “optimistic” that he could get Mark Sanchez to stay at USC for one more year and we all know how that worked out.

by Hetfield72 on Dec 10, 2009 3:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I remember...

I guess I was hoping for a move like the one Carolina made with Phillie when they traded a 4th rounder and a 1st the following year, so that they could get Jeff Otah.

by CaliRamMan on Dec 9, 2009 9:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My take...

I am not a draft prospect expert and I won’t pretend to be. I don’t really watch any college football, so I can’t endorse any particular player at a position. But having watched every snap of every Rams game for the last several years, I can at least voice an opinion on what the Rams need.

In my opinion from a high level perspective, the offense has really hurt the defense the last few seasons. In many games, our defense has put up a strong effort in the first half, only to continually be put back on the field over and over again because of an offense that can’t move the ball. I’m not going to pretend that we don’t have big needs on defense. In fact, I would say OLB, CB, and DT are major needs that need to be addressed. Every Sunday I see a defense that makes some good plays, but can’t dominate enough to win us games when we can’t even score an offensive touchdown (which I believe has happened in 4 games this year!).

So in my opinion, we are desperately in need of an offensive upgrade. Now, you can definitely blame part of the problem on the lackluster offensive playcalling that has taken place this year. I agree this is part of the problem, but for me it comes down to this: Do I feel that the Rams have enough pieces on offense to win us games even with a better offensive scheme? No. Jackson is amazing, I like the upgrades we have made on the O-line, and I feel we have a nice set of young and talented WRs in (Avery, Robinson, Gibson, Amendola, and Burton) even though I feel we still need something there. The big thing missing is a field general QB. There is no way to be a successful team in the NFL without a strong QB. We need someone with passion and that can execute the plays and put some points on the board.

Like most people, I cringe at the idea of drafting a QB in the first few picks. There is such a long list of guys that were “can’t miss” coming out of college and turned out to struggle to even make backup spots on teams. I don’t care if we address this issue in the draft, free agency, or with a trade but I feel strongly that the Rams need to find a way to address the QB spot as soon as possible.

I agree that you have to be very cautious when deciding on a franchise QB in the draft. It can be a franchise crippling decision. But I also think you can’t be scared to make the pick. Sitting around afraid to take a QB in round 1 for several years can also have a crippling effect on a franchise.

So I won’t endorse any of the QBs for our #1 pick (because I don’t know much about them), but I will say that I believe that QB is our biggest need and can have the biggest impact in helping us become a winning team.

by Hetfield72 on Dec 10, 2009 3:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Hard to argue with that

by dbcouver on Dec 10, 2009 8:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Very True

We really do need to get that franchise QB, but I have to agree with andyrose. I just don’t see any of the QBs coming out this year as a QB I want to put the franchise’s hopes on in that top 5 pick range.

I am positive someone will take one top 5, but I think its a stretch.

by kickasskeever on Dec 12, 2009 10:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It now appears we will have the number one pick in the draft.

I don’t think there are any QBs coming out this year that deserve that high a selection. It would be great if someone would give us several high picks for the number one, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. If we end up having the number one pick in the first round, I think it has to be Suh.

by andyrose on Dec 10, 2009 10:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs