More on the Alex Barron trade
by Ryan Van Bibber on May 10, 2010 11:51 AM CDT
in 2010 St. Louis Rams offseason
Email
PrintToday can't pass without a post devoted to the fact that the St. Louis Rams trade of Alex Barron is supposed to be completed sometime before midnight. The end of an era is here. Barron's departure and the imminent arrival of LB Bobby Carpenter from Dallas has been covered in recent days, but there are a few more thoughts on the matter to share.
Rams vs. Tight Ends
The Rams were awful defending opposing tight ends last season. It's hard to blame the lack of LB help exclusively when the secondary had problems of its own. Opposing TEs had a 22.8 percent DVOA against the Rams, a better number than #1and #2 WRs. That was the 28th worst number in the league, per Football Outsiders. Opposing TEs averages 49.6 yards per game and 6.5 passes per game against the Rams.
Safety play and cornerbacks will go a long way toward improving the Rams numbers against tight ends. Will Bobby Carpenter help on that front? He could, but the bottom line is that we won't know until we see. Nevertheless, giving up on Barron, who had done all he could do here, for a player who could potentially help address that issue was a good move.
Not Our Problem Anymore
Billy Devaney inherited a team with very few productive former first round picks. You don't need any statistical formula to tell you what kind of problems it causes a team to have first round picks not producing. Dumping Tye Hill was easy; Barron was a little harder to cut ties with because he at least gave the Rams a consistently healthy average player to do a job. Recent additions of Jason Smith and Rodger Saffold made the decision that much easier. Too often teams keeping giving first round picks chance after chance to live up to their potential and make good on the front office's investment. It can be a costly decision. Give the current front office credit for not hanging on to former first round picks whose shelf-life has expired.
Here's a list of first rounders dispatched by Devaney and Co.
Adam Carriker, 2007 - Traded for a swap of 5th round picks, which the Rams turned into DE Hall Davis. Carriker was out of place in St. Louis, a 3-4 DE, like so many picks from the Linehan era. Some thought the Rams received too little in return, but what exactly did Carriker bring to the team when he was healthy enough to get on the field?
Tye Hill, 2006 - Traded for a seventh rounder from the Falcons last year, which the Rams used for DE George Selvie this year. Maybe it was the injuries, but the could barely justify putting Hill on the field by the end of his time here.
Alex Barron, 2005 - See above.
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Van/TST all over ESPN Insider today
Getting bigged up like nobody’s business mate.
by strugglemonkey on May 10, 2010 12:03 PM CDT reply actions
If they don't pick up a Veteran OT, I think guys are underestimating how this offense will struggle
— Hank Fraley basically replaces last year’s Incognito, so you get less hot-head penalties but you probably also get less athleticism in an older guy. Cogs was not a bad blocker, he just blew his top too often.
— And you have a rookie OT on one edge, and a half rookie OT on the other edge. Better than Barron? Well, less penalties probably but if you choose to conveniently forget that no other Rams could allow the coach to move Barron the 2nd string, than you are seeting yourself up to get your feelings hurt next season.
— You might have a rookie QB.
— And you will have your workhorse RB coming off backsurgery that the team called minor for the sake of propaganda. Relying on him to be the bell cow like they did last year is all but out of the question
Like I’ve been saying, I am certainly no fan of Alex Barron. But you can’t ignore the fact that the coaches continued to have to play him last year because no one esle could beat him out for the spot. Sending him packing is not going to do so much for morale and pillars and whatever that all of a sudden Greco is now a dominant blocker, or Setts, nor does it mean that Saffold shows up and plays better than last year’s rookie. (by the way, has anyone really heard that Barron was bad in the locker room? Heard this form team mates or the local beat media? I haven’t. I don’t think there’s some huge moral gain by his trade….maybe a little if any, but I haven’t heard this from anyone but board posters)
This offense just became egg-shell fragile.
or they could dominate
Take away Barron’s 43 false starts and he still has one of the the lowest performance rating of any startng tackle. No one is going to miss barron for anything. Saffold as a rookie will outperfrom Barron. It really is not that far fetched.
If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back, find it and kill it.
and we were really paper thin at linebacker
If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back, find it and kill it.
That's not reality based
Why not look at reality instead?
Last year’s #2 overall was widely considered more talented than Saffold and he didn’t outperform Barron. Saffold as a 2nd round rookie will not outperform Barron anymore than Jason Smith did. You overestimate rookies quite a bit.
Barron’s 5 or 6 false starts last year weren’t so bad they could replace him with Smith or anyone else on the roster, that’s just the facts. Those false starts don’t mean his perfromance was below that of a rookie. Lets just be real.
by CoachConnors on May 10, 2010 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions
remember Barron added holding penalties to skill set
5 holds. And Smith’s sample size was to small with only 5 games, Smith was better and will be better. And so will Saffold.
If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back, find it and kill it.
Smith was not better than Barron last year.
He barely started looking like a solid starting tackle before he got hurt. Saffold will take most of this year to look like a solid starting tackle. That’s just the way it works for almost all rookie OTs. It takes time for them to get the hang of playing in the NFL. In the meantime the opposing defense should have lots of fun blowing by them.
That’s not to say they won’t both be better than Barron in a year or two, but they won’t be for most of this year. And if one or both of them get hurt, where do we turn? Goldberg is the only other realistic option, and he wasn’t that great last year when filling in for Smith – just adequate. Why not keep a guy who has proven he can play the position better than Goldberg or our other backups instead of trading him for a soft, injured LB who hasn’t done a thing in his years as a pro?
by andyrose on May 10, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm totally with you on this AR
I just can’t step in and comment lately without losing my cool. I’m working on it but you’ve done a helluva job reflecting what I think, so I thought I’d rec ya. Draft included.
Coach, you keep saying 'beat out' or 'outperform' like there was a battle for the LT
position, but reality is it was Barrons position. It was said the Rams did not want to start the rook on the L side. When Smith did get the opportunity to play in the left he did very well. Coaches feel he will step in and take care of the L side, so Barron was expendable. Why have him as a b/u when there are team needs and we can get value for him now? Next year we get nothing.
How do you define performance? If your job is to protect the QB w/no to minimal penalties Barron did half his job correct sometimes, which means his performance was avg at best. Discarding penalties as not effecting performance is ridiculous. That means Barron has to do his job again [once the penalty flag is thrown] and someone else has to perform better to make up for Barron’s mistake.
I understand your concerns Coach
to me, Barron’s inconsistency was more of a negative than his false starts. And I think the coaching staff was done trying to get through to him. He didn’t fit well on the right and they want to move Smith to LT.
Turf Show Times
by Ryan Van Bibber on May 10, 2010 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Barron could line up man on man
and block people. But if he is asked to do anything else.. pick up a delayed blitz, look inside first… pull..double team.. call the play dead. This plus 43 false starts and now holding calls..
If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back, find it and kill it.
agree with inconsistancy being worse
… than simple false start penalties, and yes, I’m sure you’re right about them wanting to get Smith on the LT now. I would want that too, that’s what he was hired to do.
And you know, if they added a proven RT somewhere along the line, then it’d be a whole ’nuther conversation. I would haave been celebrating if they had included that in the deal, somehow.
To me it feels as though they settling for less just because they didn’t want to deal with Barron anymore. Am I a Barron supporter? Hardly. I’m not here to save the world or be Barron’s mentor, either.
But giving up on Barron is a hell of a luxury when you’ve already got one half-rookie on the other Tackle, the bell cow RB just had back surgery, and your franchise QB has yet to take the field. Of all times to show you can coach, to show you have the ability to light a fire, this would be it.
I think the guys who think Goldberg or Saffold can just step in and be an upgrade are going to be disappointed. But I will leave that to them, and I’ll just be resigned to being happily surprised if I’m wrong. Won’t be the first time : p
by CoachConnors on May 10, 2010 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Some of the little credit I'll give the current FO and Coaching staff is for:
procuring Bradford and dumping Barron, Hill and Carriker along with a LOT of other deadbeats. I still can’t stand the fact we didn’t get a high quality DT or OLB in either FA or the draft. Maybe Carpenter will surprise me. But that still leaves us counting on guys like Vobora and Diggs for the 3rd LB and a big ol’ hole at one DT position.
We haven't heard he was bad in the locker room, but
this FO hasn’t made a habit of calling people out individually. Even when you and I and everyone knew Bulger wasn’t the answer, Spags stood by him publicly. But their actions have shown they’re moving forward with a team dynamic in mind and have lived with making unpopular decisions that seem inexplicable in the short term. They got a lot of flack last year for passing on both Aaron Curry and Rey Maualuga to get JL.
We do know Barron’s been criticized for his lack of focus, passion, and consistency. We know the FO has said they want to move forward with character team guys. And we know that so far, players have been let go of due age/contracts (Holt, Pace, etc…), fit in our scheme (Pisa, Carriker to an extent), productivity (Tye Hill), and character (Incognito). There haven’t been reckless cuts like Linehan did to Madison Hedgecock and Fakhir Brown. In fact, this FO has deliberated long and hard over the difficult personnel changes and seem to try and leverage value before outright releasing the ones who don’t fit.
Point is, it may be a case of addition by subtraction, but given the track record of how this FO operates, I’d say it wasn’t just done flippantly.
calling people out individually
You probably remember they did bench both Barron and Richie Incognito at different points of the season for not being mentally in the game.
by CoachConnors on May 10, 2010 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions
They did.
Though they don’t seem to air out internal laundry to the press. Everyone knew Richie was a problem mainly because he got into fights on TV. But we didn’t hear the Rams leaking anything about his character; they kind of downplayed it to the media. Once Richie left he was running his mouth about the Rams and they didn’t respond publicly.
I'm in total agreement Coach!
"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
Coach
If you’re referring to my “would you like to have Saffold in the locker room with Barron?” comment, no I have not heard anything about Barron being a bad influence in the locker room, however, it’s no secret that the guy does take plays off and loses focus. Personally, I wouldn’t want that rubbing off on a rookie.
My feeling is, there is more to this trade than just saving penalties. He had many chances too.
With that said, I do agree that we are more fragile now on the O-Line but I think we’ll be ok if we can stay healthy. Notice I said “ok” not “great”
Unfortunately we are at a point now where just about any trade will leave somewhat of a hole while we plug another.
Also, I was saying it last year: Steven Jackson timeline is not going to meet the teams. By the team we get to be playoff contenders, Jackson will most likely be all but out of the league. We’re seeing signs NOW, way earlier than any of us anticipated.
Back surgeries are not “minor”. I don’t care what kind. Trust me, I have back issues and have turned down surgeries similar to what he had.
"The greatest accomplishment is not in never falling, but in rising again after you fall." - Vince Lombardi
On point
IMO, Jackson’s primary role for this team going forward would be to help transition Bradford into the league, plus play mentor to any young back we may get in the future that’d ultimately team with Bradford.
And we are thin in the bargaining chip department so almost every trade will come with an opportunity cost. And, almost every move we make will and has been met with criticism because there’s no one end-all solution to this.
So say we get a third down linebacker out of this trade who leads to more three-and-outs and helps us get better field position/keep opponents’ scores down in exchange for maybe blocking breakdowns from a young line but less offensive penalties/plays called. At least in that case, since we’ll most likely be running some kind of dink and dunk offense this year, way may be able to hang in closer games. Worth it?
If the injury bug hits, we’re screwed either way.
alex barron trade
good post. one question, though. i’ll use this quote as my basis, “You don’t need any statistical formula to tell you what kind of problems it causes a team to have first round picks not producing”. how do you quantify producing when it comes to offensive linemen? i know false starts do not help, but what other type of statistical data can be used to show boom or bust as a draft pick?
by westernmaramsfan on May 10, 2010 1:03 PM CDT reply actions
good trade
Barron was an average OT, OK for a day 2 choice, not what you want from a top15 choice.
A 2nd rd. choice should start in year 1. We lost depth at OL & gained depth at OLB. It seems we got upgraded at 2 positions.
And the reason why the coaches kept playing him?
Apparently the whole team is bad.
by CoachConnors on May 10, 2010 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
because he didnt get hurt and we didnt have saffold
that is his only talent
If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back, find it and kill it.
so my point is while you may have stats saying he is bad, he was still the best Tackle they had.
Not just my opinion, it was the coaches opinion because they were starting him on the Left side.
So while I am not a fan of Barron, let’s be real about this: the Rams tackle spots being taken over by 2 rookies is a going to be a problem this year. They don’t have someone to step in and be better than Barron. Saffold will need at least one fulll year to be better than Barron. Anyone thinking Saffold is better than Barron is just not being real about it.
I guess that’s ok, for those guys that like to day dream and pretend. But rookie T’s are like rookie WR’s….people seem to think we’ll get great production out of them, and that’s really very rare when you look at the reality of it.
by CoachConnors on May 10, 2010 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions
But you cant say that either
Saffold may be better right out of the gate. We can’t know for sure. I don’t have any reservation about walking away from Barron. None
If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back, find it and kill it.
While I agree with you to a point
That a lack of depth on the O-Line is a concern you can hardly say that the coaches believe he is still the best tackle on the team when they are the ones that traded/are trading him away. Clearly they feel his course is run in St Louis and are comfortable enough with Smith and Saffold. My main issue with Barron is that he has never looked like like a starting tackle, he flashes moments where he can play but then lets it down by taking plays off.
by Stonedtodeath on May 10, 2010 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Rookie Tackles
Rookie tackles actually do very well. Marcus McNeil, Jake Long, Michael Oher, Phil Loadholt, Ryan Clady, Joe Thomas, D’Brickashaw Ferguson. Those just happen to be the guys who were UNBELIEVABLE their rookie year. The offensive line is one of the easiest switches as long as you play with your hand in the dirt in college.
Barron was a huge underachiever and was a drag on the team. Smith and Saffold wont immediately be that much of a step down and they will improve over the course of the season. Baron would definitely not improve.
Choice!
During a shoulder pads-and-shorts practice at Valley Ranch, offensive linemen address third-year linebacker/bust Bobby Carpenter as "Barbie Carpenter" and a "punk ass bitch."
more from Will at Rams Herd.
I’m sure whoever thought Carpenter was bringing leadership didn’t know how much his own Dallas Cowboy team mates were disgusted by him.
I imagine this happens often
I mean it’s practice, it doesn’t seem unusual for me to hear some offensive guys getting pissy at some defensive guys. Maybe he had beat them consistently and all they could do was talk trash, doesn’t look like a red flag to me and I’m still very interested to see how he progresses this offseason.
Julio Jones for Rams 2011
they think he called out TO
If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back, find it and kill it.
It wasn't just the players calling him that.
The fans did too. That’s because he is soft, can’t get off a block, and generally accomplished nothing for Dallas after being a first round draft choice.At best he will come in on passing plays to cover the tight end. That’s about it. He can’t stop running plays any better than the LBs we’ve cut, if that well.
To me it looks like we are trading away a decent backup at OT to acquire an OLB (one Dallas doesn’t want) simply to attempt to cover up the fact that Devaney and Spags didn’t draft an OLB like everyone knew they should this year.
Not as simple as that.
Them not replacing Barron with a veteran OT talent is the killer part of a complicated situation.
Having a rookie RT and
a half-rookie LT, who missed half the season because of injury, and
they’re blocking for a RB who just had back surgery and
a rookie QB who hasn’t played for a year because of injury.
I’m usually a pretty optimistic person, but I have a hard time thinking a rookie QB will have enough time to throw with a rookie and half-rookie as the OT’s.
You can live without much of a TE, but OTackles are kind of a big deal. If Rams traded for an experienced OT, it’d be a whole different (and better) situation.
And I certainly don’t think Saffold is a bad player.
Its just that I don’t think he will come in (again, as a rookie) and be close to what an experienced RT (even Barron) would have been for this year.
I think this is a very bad situation with this offense right now, because the coaches basically threw up their hands on a problem player. I’m mightily disappointed they did that right now. The rest of the offense really can’t afford to deal with inexperience at OT.
by CoachConnors on May 10, 2010 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Question about the rookie QB part:
Does your line of thinking- which I find completely valid- assume that Saffold/Smith won’t be ready at all this season? Or do you think they could potentially come on at some point midway through the year? As I typed that the answer that came to my mind was a rookie is a rookie…but, I’m wondering if you see it feasible for Bradford to come it at say, midseason, to a young line that’s had a chance to learn a bit on the job.
As for injuries, let’s face it: if we have another injury-plagued season, Barron or no Barron, whoever lines up at center will have it rough.
Saffold/Smith coming on?
Really individual thing. Smith started out with presumably better talent, but that was just a projection and you know how draft projections go. But at this point at least he does have some NFL experience.
I would bet if they’re starting Smith at LT and Saffold at RT, no, I would not expect Bradford to be able to come in and effectively play by midseason. I wonder if Jackson will even be able to run effectively in the early season, too.
It’s a pretty tough combination, all that.
I think for the most part, people really expect more from rookies than the rookies can actually deliver. It’s a predictable cycle: People get expectations up, then the rookies play like rookies (up and down), people get disappointed and call the player a bust too soon. Its very common for a guy to need 2 years before they can put together a string of games that make them look like a 1st rounder (or even 2nd)
by CoachConnors on May 10, 2010 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Offensive Line....
I’m glad the Rams are trading Barron away…. I hated his “drive-killing” penalties! There can be plenty of OL depth on the free agency route. You never know what the Rams can find. Look at Jeff Saturday of the Colts. He’s an All-Pro Center. He was a free-agent pickup for the Colts years back.
With Barron, what was the Rams win-loss record the past 4 seasons? Really? Keeping Baron is better than not? Ha!
replacing Barron is better than not
going with a rookie is not better than not.
by CoachConnors on May 10, 2010 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, its done
Source: Cowboys, Rams complete trade
http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/news/story?id=5177715
If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back, find it and kill it.
even if
the offense takes a step back without barron (which, frankly, i don’t see happening), and we have another year of anemic offense, the team still takes two steps forward long term by acquiring some sort of value for a tackle with no future, and we put two tackles with alot of potential on the field for a regular baptism by fire.
Im ok with the trade even if we struggle the year, so long as it doesnt end up hurting the new love of my life, Ram Ramford.
Let's not forget ...
… we lose a bad attitude. Don’t underestimate the value of that.
…and … if we are going to get on the Sam Tram, then we might as well assume that Sam, Smith, Saffold and our plethora of (currently) uninjured WR’s will all help S-Jax as well as each other.
We won’t have the same offense as last year. The tackles won’t have as much pressure on the as they did last year.
Every little improvement in one area helps another area … so even if Barron is better than Saffold, it won’t be as glaring a difference this year as it would have been last year.
…now, I still need to buy my tickets for the Sam Tram.
I can take a beating ... I'm a Rams fan.
Plus
Bobby Carpenter never settled in at inside linebacker in the 3-4 scheme and is more suited to play the outside linebacker position in a 4-3 alignment. .
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Turf Show Times
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Cover the web with Turf
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Boston (in) Common: Kevin Youkilis set to marry Tom Brady’s sister
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
