Rams won't look to Looker for help at WR
It's been widely assumed here and elsewhere throughout the Rams corner of the internet that the team would bring back WR Dane Looker, if for nothing else other than his experience and need for depth at the position. Now, don't be so sure. In his chat over at STLtoday.com, Bill Coats had this to say about the team's dalliance, or lack thereof, with Looker:
Looker hasn't signed anywhere. I really thought the Rams would bring him back, given their youth and lack of personnel at WR, but they apparently aren't interested. Draftee Brooks Foster has been assigned Looker's No. 89.
Other than defying what stood as conventional wisdom, we shouldn't really be surprised. The Rams have gone to great lengths to jettison older players, even the big names weren't spared in the roster purges of '09. Looker, at 33, isn't much more than a role player at this point. That said, he could have been/could be useful for the Rams, but, other than experience and maybe some intangible like leadership, etc., what does he bring that one of the other, younger WRs on the roster can't offer?
Without Looker, they'll have to find another player to serve as holder for the field goal unit.
This doesn't mean the Rams won't resign Looker or find another WR as rosters get trimmed down in August. Injuries and the chance to evaluate players with the pads on could definitely shuffle team needs. However, with the direction the Rams appear to be heading, I'd be surprised if they brought in a player over the age of 30.
This is a good chance to take a look at the receivers likely to make the 53-man roster come September.They're likely to keep six WRs.
Shoo-Ins: Donnie Avery, Keenan Burton, Laurent Robinson
Somewhat less likely: Derek Stanley, Brooks Foster, Tim Carter
Much to prove: Chad Lucas, Jaret Byers, Nate Jones, Travis Brown, Horace Grant
The only player I feel comfortable about putting in the middle column is Derek Stanley, but I still don't thing he's got a guaranteed spot, especially since he's still recovering from an injury and others can emerge to return kicks. Foster gets a little extra boost since the Rams drafted him, but that's no given either. Carter is a younger, 28, veteran who rates as more likely than some of the undrafted guys and practice squad guys in the last grouping.
Right now, though, the Rams brass seems ready to go to battle with the receivers they've got, relative lack of experience be damned. It's not a common strategy, but there are examples in recent history of teams finding success with similar situations at WR.
0 recs |
8 comments
|
Comments
I'd feel better about things
if Looker were included in that second list. But, apparently, it is not to be. Oh well…
Secret elixir, huh? Well, I'm usually more of a bourbon guy but when push comes to shove I don't know what the hell's in that either.
by Tackle Box on May 26, 2009 8:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I would too
If they fall short on Wides this year, this move will look stupid.
Lived in LA during the Rams and Raiders days. Now based in NorCal, I am still a die hard Rams fan and Raiders season ticket holder.
by CoachConnors on May 26, 2009 8:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The way I see it
Stanley and Carter are question marks. One because of his health and the other because of being bad. Actually, I’ve heard absolutely nothing recently about Stanley, so maybe that’s an unfair label.
Secret elixir, huh? Well, I'm usually more of a bourbon guy but when push comes to shove I don't know what the hell's in that either.
by Tackle Box on May 26, 2009 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What does this decision say...
About Looker? About the need for experienced hands to bring along the younger guys? Maybe less about those things and more about a run heavy game plan.
I think every one knows that you need experience to flourish, so if they’re going to completely flush out the old, it must be a sign the older guys either 1) didn’t have the type experience needed (good run blockers vs. Martz Air Show) or 2) the posiiton isn’t integral to how they plan to win. Attempt to win, whatever.
Its not like Looker was Honolulu material but this shallow of a roster? The reciever corp was already suspect, now they’re just deciding there was no value worth retaining whatsoever.
Lived in LA during the Rams and Raiders days. Now based in NorCal, I am still a die hard Rams fan and Raiders season ticket holder.
by CoachConnors on May 26, 2009 9:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Damn! Damn! Damn!
If what VanRam says is true then it’s very sad. Looker was my Ricky Proehl of “the present”.
He had 112 career receptions, 1,224 receiving yards and 5 receiving TDs. Now those stats don’t sound like much but the one stat that is not readily known is how many 1st downs he made when it came to crunch time.
To me he was a dependable reciever Marc could go to to get just enough yardage for a 1st down when the Rams needed one but I don’t think he was utilized enough for that.
He was always one of my favs so If he goes, though it won’t exactly bring a tear to my eye, I will surely miss him and IMHO so will the Rams.
Go Rams!
"We can't run. We can't pass. We can't stop the run. We can't stop the pass. We can't kick. Other than that, we're just not a very good football team right now." --- Bruce Coslett, New York Jets Head Coach circa 1990s
by Nbr1RamFan on May 27, 2009 8:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I felt the same way
about Looker until last year. He seemed to lose his edge last year and just wasn’t the same. He dropped some balls in important situations and didn’t seem to get open as much. I really liked him like you did, but something seemed to happen to him last year.
by andyrose on May 27, 2009 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i GOTTA FUNNY FEELING
We’re gonna be fine. With an improved offensive line, we’ll be seeing a lot more man coverage. If it doesn’t open up the passing game it won’t be our receivers that will be the problem.
by dbcouver on May 27, 2009 11:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
STANLEY IS A SLEEPER
I think alot of St Louis fans are missing the boat on Stanley. This guy’s kickoff return average ranked 10th in NFL. He maybe the best Special team player on the roster. I seen him have some great returns. On a team that doesn’t even block for him. Deon Sanders made a comment during the 2007 Pittsburgh game that he was the only player that showed up to play for the rams in that game! He had a great catch for a touchdown vs Arizona last season! Also most WR don’t mature until 3rd season, when the game slows down. Don’t forget this Kid was drafted from a DIII school and has beaten all the odds.That tells me he can play.
by Claude G on May 28, 2009 12:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 





















