St. Louis Rams LT Rodger Saffold's ankle injury does not appear to be serious

by Ryan Van Bibber on Nov 15, 2010 10:40 AM CST in 2010 St. Louis Rams season

As if their fourth consecutive road loss of the season didn't do enough to imperial the St. Louis Rams' 2010 season, a second quarter injury to starting left tackle Rodger Saffold threatened to take things way off the rails.

Saffold had an ankle injury. Follow-up x-rays were negative and the team does not expect it to be serious.

Whew. That could have been a costly loss for the Rams, shades of seasons past even. Hats off to Renardo Foster for stepping in and playing well in Saffold's place. That's two games in a row that the Rams have pressed Foster into service, with encouraging results both times. That said, the Rams are much better off with Saffold starting, but having a capable backup at a key position offers at least some comfort considering there were very real concerns about it earlier in the year.

Let me rephrase this post a little bit re: Renardo Foster. I don't mean to give the guy undue praise. He's adequate, not a 1-1 replacement for the starting OTs. In fact, Foster allowed a pretty big sack on third down of the Rams' only overtime possession. Would Saffold have allowed that sack? It's impossible to say, but precedent indicates it would have been far less likely.

And another though...why not move Jason Smith over to LT? He should know the position. Yes, they like having his run blocking on the right side, but given the emphasis on the pass wouldn't it have been better to put Smith over there? When the headlines focused on the rookie Saffold earning the LT spot, the Rams coaches mentioned more than once how beneficial it was to have offensive tackles who could play both positions.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

That's great news, thanks for the update!

I thought Foster struggled against SF’s Smith…I think he’s more capable of filling in at RT, where he had a great game replacing Jason Smith. Safffold has been a gem of a 2nd round pick and if St. Louis was on the east coast, he might get the same accolades as Michael Oher?! He needs to be on the field.

by Pekka for Predator Pontiff on Nov 15, 2010 10:48 AM CST reply actions

the reasoning for not switching Jason would be

you already have Foster playing out of position (in a sense, since he came off the bench), why move Jason to LT and have him playing out of position as well (regardless of whether or not he can play LT, he’s been playing RT for the Rams for a while now)

In other words, the LT position is already weakened. Why go out of your way to weaken the RT position as well.

by jb22 on Nov 15, 2010 11:04 AM CST reply actions

Yeah, I'm not saying they could've done it differently, I'm indirectly saying how good and valuable our young LT is.

by Pekka for Predator Pontiff on Nov 15, 2010 11:41 AM CST up reply actions

btw

Ross Tucker, who was a former NFL O-lineman, hosts the ESPN Football podcast. He answered an email a couple of weeks ago that was asking why the Cowboys didn’t pull one of these switches when one of their linemen went down, and he said it was because it doesn’t make sense to pull a guy out of his natural position when there is no reason to do so. (Jason Smith’s natural position is RT at this point. He’s been playing RT for a while)

And why is everyone so mad about Jason getting paid like an LT? Our LT Saffold is getting paid like a RT. So doesn’t it balance out in the end? The point is we have 2 guys playing at the positions that help our team the most. Shouldn’t that be the end of that discussion?

by jb22 on Nov 15, 2010 11:42 AM CST up reply actions

Thats all good until Saffold gets a new contract

Then we have 2 LTs on teh payroll and one on the line, unless, of course, we cut Smith or he takes a pay cut.

by dbcouver on Nov 15, 2010 11:59 AM CST up reply actions

Smith's contract is up

1 year before Saffolds. We won’t be paying two players LT money unless the Rams FO makes a conscious decision to do so. We are not locked into anything. Either Jason stays and gets paid like a RT, or he decides to make the late switch to LT and test FA.

Either way, the Rams are financially safe

by jb22 on Nov 15, 2010 12:03 PM CST up reply actions

Contracts

Jason Smith: Signed a 6 year contract in July 2009, but the 6th year is voidable
Roger Saffold: Signed a 4 year contract in July 2010

So either, Smith’s contract is up 1 year after Saffold’s or if they void the last year, they are up in the same year.

by Hetfield72 on Nov 15, 2010 1:03 PM CST up reply actions

my bad

did not know that. Thanks for the correction.

My point still stands that we’re not going to be paying both of them LT money simultaneously. From a pure $ standpoint, nothing is out of the ordinary

by jb22 on Nov 15, 2010 3:15 PM CST up reply actions

I don't want to be a negative person....

but the reason you don’t switch to Jason Smith at left tackle is because he isn’t playing well at the moment. Smith did not have a very good game yesterday. He held up ok, but I watched him for most of the game and he made several mistakes in pass protection.

I hate to say it, but Smith has been a big disappointment for me. Regardless of if RT is “his more natural position” or not, the bottom line is that he has not played at the dominant level that is expected of a #2 overall draft pick. He has had some very nice moments both in run blocking and pass blocking, but the consistency and durability just haven’t been there. I think with #2 overall you are hoping for a Joe Thomas or Jake Long type tackle or a Suh/Bradford type talent at their position.

I’m not writing him off or saying he can’t get there at all, but I think if we are all honest with ourselves we all feel a little unhappy with how that pick has turned out so far. I wish him the best and I hope he can become the player we thought we were drafting.

by Hetfield72 on Nov 15, 2010 11:27 AM CST reply actions

We got 6 in one hand and one half dozen in the other.

We got our LT in the second round, and he’s as good as any first round LT in recent years, and our RT we got #2 overall. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth :)

AND, Bradford should always be mentioned before Suh. Just because he is better. And just to be respectable. And just to not sound like a Suh-lover.

by Pekka for Predator Pontiff on Nov 15, 2010 11:45 AM CST reply actions

They both should be great draft picks!!

I don’t like the logic that its all fine that J. Smith hasn’t been a #2 overall talent because we got a steal with Saffold. That is faulty logic. Also, I don’t even care if Smith is a RT. I just think that someone taken that high should be dominant at whatever position they play.

Sorry for the Suh slip up. Clearly Bradford is the man and goes first in the list.

by Hetfield72 on Nov 15, 2010 11:50 AM CST up reply actions

I forgive you

And I didn’t mean that Smith can’t still be great…he can…and he’s only in his 2nd year, so he has a lot of improvement we can expect as well. But people think just cause we drafted him #2 and cause we expected him to be a LT that he’s a bust if he’s not. And I disagree with this logic.

We’re on the same page.

by Pekka for Predator Pontiff on Nov 15, 2010 11:56 AM CST reply actions