Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

GTripp0012 · 02-25-2010, 09:37 PM

I think Suh is going to be there at No. 4. And I think we probably won't take him.

Unless Suh was so awesome that he could play LT and DT. Then I think we'd pay him the combination of two starters salaries.

Pocket$ $traight · 02-25-2010, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think Suh is going to be there at No. 4. And I think we probably won't take him.

Unless Suh was so awesome that he could play LT and DT. Then I think we'd pay him the combination of two starters salaries.

If Suh truly is the most dominant player in the draft, I think you take him. You can never have too many pass rushers.

Dirtbag59 · 02-25-2010, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

If Suh truly is the most dominant player in the draft, I think you take him. You can never have too many pass rushers.

Except when you have no one to throw the ball.

Ruhskins · 02-25-2010, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Except when you have no one to throw the ball.

Or if no one can throw the ball because they are flat on their asses due to the pudding of an offensive line.

Dirtbag59 · 02-25-2010, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Or if no one can throw the ball because they are flat on their asses due to the pudding of an offensive line.

The Rams, we're talking about the Rams. The team with two first round OT's. I mean I want us to take Bradford but right now we're talking about The Rams taking Bradford and why it makes sense.

Ruhskins · 02-25-2010, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

The Rams, we're talking about the Rams. The team with two first round OT's. I mean I want us to take Bradford but right now we're talking about The Rams taking Bradford and why it makes sense.

My bad, yeah they should take Bradford, makes sense for them.

GTripp0012 · 02-25-2010, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

My bad, yeah they should take Bradford, makes sense for them.

Unlike us though, they figure to be picking in the top five or six next year, so their big question should be whether or not Bradford is the best quarterback in the next two drafts. And the answer, at least in terms of underclassmen, is probably yes. I'm guessing Locker isn't going to post a 67% completion season out of nowhere.

With that said, I'm not confident that he's actually a better pick for the Rams than is Jimmy Clausen. But without a doubt, the Rams should trade down if it's at all possible (it's not).

Dirtbag59 · 02-25-2010, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

My bad, yeah they should take Bradford, makes sense for them.

Dun worry it's k

Pocket$ $traight · 02-25-2010, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Except when you have no one to throw the ball.

I have no problem with Campbell starting, less comfortable if Brennan starts, but I would have a big problem with starting any College QB. There will also be some Free Agent QB's out there (although most sites say Campbell is the best FA QB) and mid to later round guys that could be drafted.

I am not convinced that QB is a huge priority at this moment.

Ruhskins · 02-25-2010, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

I have no problem with Campbell starting, less comfortable if Brennan starts, but I would have a big problem with starting any College QB. There will also be some Free Agent QB's out there (although most sites say Campbell is the best FA QB) and mid to later round guys that could be drafted.

I am not convinced that QB is a huge priority at this moment.

BLASPHEMY!!! :FIREdevil

In reality, I don't see Suh falling past Tampa Bay though. Although, I wonder if any team would be willing to trade up to pick up Suh?

Dirtbag59 · 02-25-2010, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

I have no problem with Campbell starting, less comfortable if Brennan starts, but I would have a big problem with starting any College QB. There will also be some Free Agent QB's out there (although most sites say Campbell is the best FA QB) and mid to later round guys that could be drafted.

I am not convinced that QB is a huge priority at this moment.

Yeah but in this case you're look at the situation as a Redskin fan. In terms of the Rams they've spent the last 4 out of 5 first round picks on lineman. Which is only slightly less worse then drafting recievers 3 years in a row, alright maybe not nearly as bad but it's still overkill. And when you don't have a QB your team can only go so far.

If they get Suh they'll just be a less expensive version of us in terms of their record. I want options at the #4 pick but I can't fault the Rams for taking him if they do.

Of course lets not forget the Rams were looking to possibly trade back with the Bucs so I guess Smootsmack is on to something here about elaborating on the possibility that Bradford will be their first pick, not first overall.

Ruhskins · 02-25-2010, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

If Suh truly is the most dominant player in the draft, I think you take him. You can never have too many pass rushers.

But on a 3-4, where would Suh fit? As a DE? Do was have a d-line of Haynesworth at DE, maybe Montgomery (or Justin Banan from Baltimore) at NT, and Suh at DE?

GTripp0012 · 02-25-2010, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

If Suh truly is the most dominant player in the draft, I think you take him. You can never have too many pass rushers.

I don't think he's more dominant than, say, Haloti Ngata was, and Ngata made it out of the top ten.

I think Suh might be the best player in the draft, but I wouldn't say I see him as the type of player teams will regret drafting for the next ten years. I think he's just going to develop into a pro bowl defensive tackle by 2013.

skinsfaninok · 02-25-2010, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think he's more dominant than, say, Haloti Ngata was, and Ngata made it out of the top ten.

I think Suh might be the best player in the draft, but I wouldn't say I see him as the type of player teams will regret drafting for the next ten years. I think he's just going to develop into a pro bowl defensive tackle by 2013.

Lets be realistic, when your starting a franchise, what should you draft? QB OR DT? Let me think.... O yea QB. Hell we have the best DT in the league and you saw what it got us (4-12). Point is everything starts with a QB, yes even Oline. If you don't have a QB (Vikings before Favre), you won't be real successful.

Ruhskins · 02-25-2010, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Lets be realistic, when your starting a franchise, what should you draft? QB OR DT? Let me think.... O yea QB. Hell we have the best DT in the league and you saw what it got us (4-12). Point is everything starts with a QB, yes even Oline. If you don't have a QB (Vikings before Favre), you won't be real successful.

I don't think Tripp was saying that we should draft Suh, merely stating that he is not as dominant as someone made him out to be.

And your Vikings example is horrible. Minny had everything (elite defense, very good offensive line, good running game, and decent receivers), EXCEPT a QB to be successful. While Favre was the icing on the cake, one of the reasons they were successful, was because that offensive line kept Favre upright.

We are far from being just a QB away from being successful.

02-25-2010, 09:37 PM	#1
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Evanston, IL Age: 37 Posts: 15,994	Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1 I think Suh is going to be there at No. 4. And I think we probably won't take him. Unless Suh was so awesome that he could play LT and DT. Then I think we'd pay him the combination of two starters salaries. __________________ according to a source with knowledge of the situation.

Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Locker Room Main Forum