Pocket a welcoming place for Rams QBs without Alex Barron

by Ryan Van Bibber on Jul 28, 2010 10:39 AM CDT in St. Louis Rams training camp

When the St. Louis Rams shipped enfant terrible OT Alex Barron to the Dallas Cowboys for OLB Bobby Carpenter the move earned mixed reviews from fans and the media alike.

Barron's lack of consistency with snap counts was counter balanced by his consistent ability to stay healthy. Losing a warm body, a starter nonetheless, on an offensive line chronically plagued by health concerns could come with dire consequences. At least that's what some people thought.

Set aside line's health issues and think about the QB's health issues. You don't need to dig deep into the memory of fans to get a picture of Marc Bulger and battered QB syndrome. Alex Barron has been starting on the Rams OL since 2005, his rookie year, when he started 11 games; he started 16 games in subsequent years, save for a one game benching 2008. Last season, Rams QBs were sacked 44 times, tied with Jags as the sixth most in the league.

And Barron's role in all that? Let's go to the numbers (from Pro Football Focus) for some insight. Stats include sacks

Year	Sacks	QB hits	QB pressure
2009	7	15	24
2008	8	2	21

Barron played 1,025 snaps last season and allowed the QB to be molested on about 4.4 percent of those snaps. Left tackle was suppose to be a better fit for Barron, a more natural position, but he was much worse on the left than the right side in 2008, where he allowed defenders to reach the QB on 3.2 percent of snaps he played. These numbers don't even touch the little matter of Barron's penalties, more evidence that he failed to grow as a player with the Rams.

By comparison, Adam Goldberg allowed sacks, hits and pressures on 4.1 percent of the snaps he played at RT. Rookie Jason Smith had the best number of the bunch with 3.8 percent on his limited number of snaps.

Smith is a rookie, and, ideally, should get better; he improved noticeably as the season went on last year, prior to his concussion. The same can't be said of Barron, who never seemed to get better no matter what the team did with him.

The Rams lose only depth with Barron, and at the salary he would have been paid through his RFA tender, the team was paying starting money to a backup tackle. Not exactly good business. As camp begins, another OT with starting experience and a clean bill of health would reassure fans. That need should not overshadow the fact that the Rams made the right move in cutting ties with Barron and upgraded their linebackers in the process. Teams struggling to get a new lease on life can't afford unlimited patience for first round picks that perform at a level similar to backups.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Barron was nothing if not consistent

You could depend on his penalties, you could depend on average to slightly above average blocking, you could depend on his mind being anywhere but in the game… the Rams are better without him.

You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.

by 3k on Jul 28, 2010 11:35 AM CDT reply actions

Barron

i believe that Bobby Carpenter is going to florish in our defensive schemes. This will be viewed as a very good move on the Rams part. It ranks up there with getting rid of Ingognito…

Chris

by chrisrmsfn on Jul 28, 2010 12:23 PM CDT reply actions

Not many fans question the decision to trade Barron...

only the timing. No proven left tackle to replace him. The time to trade Barron was at the start of free agency when other tackles were available for pick up. Otherwise training camp might have been another time, if Safford proved to be able to man RT adequately enough to start. As much as Barron was frustrating to watch during a game, it will be even more frustrating if the OT postition takes a step back this year because of that trade.

by Da Rams! on Jul 28, 2010 12:35 PM CDT reply actions

I don't think

That the left was supposed to be a better fit for Barron. He was decent run blocking RT and only went to the left because Pace was gone. Ideally he would never have made that move, but the Rams lacked capable Left siders.

Think it’s not that big a difference between RT and LT? Think again. With all his penalties…you can bet if they thought someone else could’ve played there, they would’ve been in the game. Goldberg’s .3%, on the other side, which is a measure of half a game (pass and not run) is fairly negligible in my mind.

This will be a new and therefore altogether different year, and if the line can play together they will be ok. Carpenter was probably about the right value for Barron but when it comes to OT, I don’t think anyone can convince me that Saffold will be the more effective player in 2010 and that’s really how I see the difference between this o-line and last year’s.

by CoachConnors on Jul 28, 2010 5:36 PM CDT reply actions