Bernie: Rams still too short of talent

[-X-]

Sixteen starters on a 6-10 team. I'm not sure that's something to get terribly excited about.

I guess it's fortunate that I didn't get excited then.

 

[FrankenRam]

Agree. Everyone would like a superstar with the pick, but the alternative is to get a bust. Anytime you avoid a bust, you've won. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the sentiment of the article, the problem is we didn't get enough stars with the resources we were provided. But it's important to keep in mind that we only got two first round picks and a second. Would people be more satisfied if Snead didn't parlay that into multiple picks and instead just used them as they were? I'm going to venture a guess and say that that too would have been met with criticism.

That's setting the bar pretty darn low. Seems to me there's a rather large range of possibilities between superstar and bust. Quite honestly, I frequently get discouraged by those who rant on every high pick that doesn't play like a HoF lock from the moment they step on the field. That's absurdly unrealistic.

But the fact is, everybody gets rated at their job in hindsight. And I don't think it's unreasonable to think the Rams could have done considerably better than they have overall.

 

[thirteen28]

You make a compelling case about many of PFF's rankings and I agree with many of them. However, I wasn't addressing that part of your post, I was addressing the part where you said that Bernie was relying on their rankings to make his point. How do you write about a set of rankings without using the rankings? I don't call that relying on them and furthermore, he specifically said you can throw them out completely and made his own case for why the Ram brain trust has not done a great job with the resources at their disposal. I still think you're misreading him in this article.
Here's what I read:

He publishes their rankings for our players.

He goes out of his way with this to say this about thier rankings: "Of course, this is only PFF's assessment. (Click here to see the chart.) The Rams internally may have different (and better) grades on their players. The same could be said of other independent evaluators — as is always the instance in subjective analyses."

He immediately goes on to say that he disagrees with many of them: "As much as I respect the crew at Pro Football Focus for their excellent and diligent work, I don't agree with all of their opinions. Two quickie examples: I think defensive endRobertQuinn is an elite player — not a "very good" player. I don't see how QB SamBradford can receive an "average" grade when he's missed the last 25 regular-season games. Bradford hasn't played in a real game since Oct. 20 of the 2013 season. So how do we know? "

He then goes on to analyze what he thinks those rankings say about the Rams personnel.

He adds in many of his own stats, not having to do with their evaluations at all, and comes to some conclusions.

He then ends with his final comments that specifically address your concerns about PFF's rankings: "You can quibble over these PFF rankings _ or throw them out completely. It doesn't matter to me. But if you put much stock in these independent Pro Football Focus evaluations, then you'd have to conclude that Snead-Fisher have missed a chance to fully exploit the bonanza of draft picks they had at their disposal over the past three years. There's no doubt that Snead-Fisher have upgraded the Rams roster. They just didn't improve it as much as they should have."

Where is the "laziness"?

Well, let's see where the laziness is:

He says this:

• The five first-rounders were Brockers, Ogletree, Austin, Robinson and Donald. Of the five, only Donald is rated above average. And three — Ogletree, Austin and Robinson — are rated below average or worse. That could change for the better as the players gain experience, but for now that's really, really bad.

All based on the PFF ratings. I've already provided an explanation of why those are wrong on Ogletree and Robinson.

• So why is Alec Ogletree rated "below average" here? Let's go to PFF's explanation: "We had Ogletree as below average last year and plenty of people disagreed and I suspect that might be the case again this year. He struggles too much in coverage, though, and for as much as he makes plenty of tackles, he missed 20 this year, the second year in a row he has been in the bottom three for missed tackle amongst 4-3 outside linebackers."

Again, based entirely on what PFF said. For those who actually watched the Rams, they saw 'Tree's switch go on at the middle of the season, as he finally picked up the scheme, and from that point on he played very good football.

• PFF noted that Greg Robinson — the No. 2 overall draft pick in 2014 — was "solid" at left guard but struggled after he was shifted to left tackle. And I think we'd all agree that Robinson will improve. That said, it's never encouraging to see the No. 2 overall pick in the "poor" category, even as a rookie.

Again, his final conclusion is based on the PFF rankings - which are absurd in this case. Robinson made his share of rookie mistakes, but he was also a helluva blocker in the run game. He was not the part of the OL that defenses exploited the ever loving crap out of during most of the season. And his play this year was on par with most other guys drafted in the last few years that started at LT as a rookie.

The paragraph about quibbling is just him covering his ass/hedging his bets, because if you look at his actual conclusions presented in the article, almost every one is based entirely on PFF's rankings. And those conclusions are entirely lacking in context.

I'll add some more context here that I heard on the Rams Addiction podcast. New Orleans, with former Super Bowl winning QB Drew Brees, plenty of other offensive talent, and a good offensive mind in Asshole Face, finished 7-9. The New York Giants, with 2-time Super Bowl winning QB Eli Manning and rookie sensation Odell Beckham, finished 6-10. The Atlanta Falcons, with Matt Ryan at QB, 2 years removed from an NFC Championship appearance, finished 6-10. The Rams, with Shaun Hill and Austin Davis at QB, finished one game behind the Saints and equal in wins with the Falcons and Giants. So what does it say about our roster that its win total could be on par with those teams, when they have QB's that are well above average to nearly elite while we were scraping the bottom of the barrel with a career backup and an undrafted free agent that had never started a game before last year? Put any of those QB's on the Rams last year and get play out of the C and RG that is at least below average instead of horribly gawd-awful, and you are looking at a playoff team for the Rams.

And going into this offseason, where are the Rams glaring needs? On defense? Well, none really. Not to say our guys are the best at every single position, but there really are no positions on D that represent huge holes. Safety, particularly FS, was the biggest need going into last season, and while there are better FS's than McCleod, he certainly improved enough as the season progressed to warrant bringing him back. At LB, we could use some depth, but unless you are PFF, it's hard to complain about our 2 main starters. And DL ... we have more talent and depth than any team in the league.

On offense? RB sure isn't a need. WR? We could use some upgrades, but Quick was on his way to a monster year before his injury, and if he returns healthy, he's a very high quality starter. Stedman showed steady improvement. We may have a gap at RT, but who, besides PFF, thinks we should replace Robinson at LT? No, our only glaring weaknesses there are the ones I've hammered at over and over: G, C, and QB. Fix the first two and get even average play out of the third, be it Bradford or someone else, and the Rams are probably a playoff team. Bernie can't see that because he really didn't do anything other than look at PFF's ratings.

 

[-X-]

Agree. Everyone would like a superstar with the pick, but the alternative is to get a bust. Anytime you avoid a bust, you've won.

That's setting the bar pretty darn low. Seems to me there's a rather large range of possibilities between superstar and bust. Quite honestly, I frequently get discouraged by those who rant on every high pick that doesn't play like a HoF lock from the moment they step on the field. That's absurdly unrealistic.

But the fact is, everybody gets rated at their job in hindsight. And I don't think it's unreasonable to think the Rams could have done considerably better than they have overall.

Do you honestly believe that *my* bar for the Rams' drafts are to avoid a bust ... only? CLEARLY there are varying degrees of success between bust and star. And I also never said that it's unrealistic to think that he could have done better at his job. If you'd like to break down the areas in which he's fallen short, then we can discuss that. It would be exponentially more productive to do it that way than to misread my posts or comment on things I never said.

 

[FrankenRam]

Do you honestly believe that *my* bar for the Rams' drafts are to avoid a bust ... only? CLEARLY there are varying degrees of success between bust and star. And I also never said that it's unrealistic to think that he could have done better at his job. If you'd like to break down the areas in which he's fallen short, then we can discuss that. It would be exponentially more productive to do it that way than to misread my posts or comment on things I never said.

Misread your post? Comment on things you never said?

"Everyone would like a superstar with the pick, but the alternative is to get a bust. Anytime you avoid a bust, you've won."

You didn't say that?

 

[-X-]

Misread your post? Comment on things you never said?

"Everyone would like a superstar with the pick, but the alternative is to get a bust. Anytime you avoid a bust, you've won."

You didn't say that?

Of course I did. I asked you if you honestly believe that *my bar* is merely to avoid a bust.

 

[Mojo Ram]

How did New England's roster stack up?

 

[Mojo Ram]

Not that i put much stock into PFF individual rankings...

 

[FrankenRam]

Of course I did. I asked you if you honestly believe that *my bar* is merely to avoid a bust.

I have no way of knowing that. I don't try to put words/thoughts in someone's mouth, and can only read what you wrote.