DFWJC
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 60,007
- Reaction score
- 48,759
Quite possibly.Drake Maye will be better.
Not willing to say that just yet, but really, you might be right
Quite possibly.Drake Maye will be better.
You first need Aaron Donald. And then to find starting quality OL's in rounds 2-5.I still wouldn’t prefer to do what they did….and it was an easy dropped interception away from not working…
But damn theres a ton of middle ground between that approach and our refusal to sign any well above average free agent…ever.
Caleb is the more flashy of the two, no doubt. And I would absolutely love to have either!!!Quite possibly.
Not willing to say that just yet, but really, you might be right
I don't think they are. They just have a readjustment period out of cap necessity.Frankly, if they are changing philosophies to build through the draft, I think that's dumb considering the all-in philosophy got them two trips to the Super Bowl. I can understand, though, if they are trying to build up the ranks to where they can go all-in again. Got to at least be close to a complete roster before you can go for it.
I like the quantity approach because even the best draft pick can fail. Of course, I don't like it the way we did it in 2009, trading away premium picks, but if you can slide down a little and pick up extra ammo, I'm for that. More swings of the bat, the more likely you are to connect.I don't think they are. They just have a readjustment period out of cap necessity.
Given that there are more UDFAs in the league than players taken in rds 4-7, and they had few high picks, it looks like they took the high-volume approach and hoping to hit on a few later-round guys.
They've had decent luck at that in the past, so we'll see.
I prefer quality over quantity but they supposedly have done some analytics here and are going for the percentages.
Agree.I like the quantity approach because even the best draft pick can fail. Of course, I don't like it the way we did it in 2009, trading away premium picks, but if you can slide down a little and pick up extra ammo, I'm for that. More swings of the bat, the more likely you are to connect.
Except the later you draft, the less likely you are to connect.I like the quantity approach because even the best draft pick can fail. Of course, I don't like it the way we did it in 2009, trading away premium picks, but if you can slide down a little and pick up extra ammo, I'm for that. More swings of the bat, the more likely you are to connect.
Speaking of….You first need Aaron Donald. And then to find starting quality OL's in rounds 2-5.
Donald has considered retiring each of the last two offseasons.Speaking of….
Bold prediction, and I want props when it hits lol….Rams make Donald available at the deadline. Two firsts lands him.
If we start well and aren’t seriously hurt by the injury bug, do you do it? I would for a guy that would take the team over the top. I don’t think the FO would though at that price, and of course that would throw off cap boys delicate manipulation of the spending limit.
If the way a team wins a Lombardi is “lame”, then I wanna be lame. Winning a championship is THE goal. No matter what it takes to get there. 50 years from now, no one will call that Rams championship lame.The
Honestly, the way they won the Super Bowl was pretty lame.
The NFL wanted the Rams to win to get LA back into football.
Now they're going to suck for the next 3 years.
As I responded to Stash's earlier post Bob..If the way a team wins a Lombardi is “lame”, then I wanna be lame. Winning a championship is THE goal. No matter what it takes to get there. 50 years from now, no one will call that Rams championship lame.
I don't disagree with that. I wouldn't, for example, trade out of the first, but I might trade down in the first to pick up an extra third or trade down in the second to pick up an extra fourth. It really depends on the value. Obviously, you don't want to trade down if you can take a player of much greater value, but for the most part, I'd trade down quite a bit if the opportunity was there.Except the later you draft, the less likely you are to connect.
Rounds 4-7 are pure dart throws. You want as many picks in rounds 1-2 as possible. Collecting mid/late round picks has never worked. Mostly, they don't even make the team. Quality is much more important that quantity when it comes to drafting, unless you're referring the multiple 1-2 round picks.
You should only trade down if the benefit is obvious and huge, or if the offer is too good to pass up. Trading down should include high picks in next years draft. That's how you end up w/ multiple picks in rounds 1-2.
Now, in this draft, trading down wasn't a bad idea, simply because this draft was middle loaded. Aside from Anderson and Carter and Bejan, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the top prospects and the next couple or so.
All depends on the draft.I don't disagree with that. I wouldn't, for example, trade out of the first, but I might trade down in the first to pick up an extra third or trade down in the second to pick up an extra fourth. It really depends on the value. Obviously, you don't want to trade down if you can take a player of much greater value, but for the most part, I'd trade down quite a bit if the opportunity was there.
Yeah, but we probably would have ended up with Paxton Lynch.All depends on the draft.
For instance, I would've traded back in the Zeke draft, if something decent was offered.
Well said. Trading multiple picks from Day 3 to get an extra pick on Day 2 or even more so on Day 1 is just increasing the odds of landing some impactful talent. Dallas has traditionally overvalued its picks in rounds 4-7- especially if they could be packaged in a trade to get more higher picks.Except the later you draft, the less likely you are to connect.
Rounds 4-7 are pure dart throws. You want as many picks in rounds 1-2 as possible. Collecting mid/late round picks has never worked. Mostly, they don't even make the team. Quality is much more important that quantity when it comes to drafting, unless you're referring the multiple 1-2 round picks.
You should only trade down if the benefit is obvious and huge, or if the offer is too good to pass up. Trading down should include high picks in next years draft. That's how you end up w/ multiple picks in rounds 1-2.
Now, in this draft, trading down wasn't a bad idea, simply because this draft was middle loaded. Aside from Anderson and Carter and Bejan, there wasn't a whole lot of difference between the top prospects and the next couple or so.
I’m not sure they overvalue them, but more it’s they know they’ll be cheap additions against the cap.Well said. Trading multiple picks from Day 3 to get an extra pick on Day 2 or even more so on Day 1 is just increasing the odds of landing some impactful talent. Dallas has traditionally overvalued its picks in rounds 4-7- especially if they could be packaged in a trade to get more higher picks.
Not 3. Wouldn't shock me if they go 11-6 this year.The
Honestly, the way they won the Super Bowl was pretty lame.
The NFL wanted the Rams to win to get LA back into football.
Now they're going to suck for the next 3 years.
If you are completely trying to reset your roster \ cap like they are, that's fine.I like the quantity approach because even the best draft pick can fail. Of course, I don't like it the way we did it in 2009, trading away premium picks, but if you can slide down a little and pick up extra ammo, I'm for that. More swings of the bat, the more likely you are to connect.
Or Ronnie Stanley, Leonard Floyd, Ryan Kelly, Taylor Decker, Kenny Clark, Laremy Tunsil, DeForest Buckner. Pointing at one draftee that didn't work out doesn't mean you shouldn't have traded back.Yeah, but we probably would have ended up with Paxton Lynch.