Logically the way it could go down. Unfortunate?

[Tron]

First, let me say this, our first pick in the draft is really hard for me to figure out. So many variables and good players. Really can't go wrong with whoever they pick.

Lets say we stay at #2 or even trade down to as low as #6

-I love the idea of adding a dynamic WR like Watkins to our WR corps. Watkins, Austin, Bailey/Quick is a good starting duo.

But....Snead has said they want to develop our current WR's, so Watkins might be out.

-Matthews/Robinson could both be good replacements for Long when we let him go in a year or two. They also would be great at guard. Robinson would be the better guard, and Matthews the better tackle if someone goes down.

But.....We already have a "swing tackle" in Saffold and really all our line needs is a LG to be complete, along with guard and tackle depth of course. So they both could be out.

What does that leave early in the 1st?

QB, DE, OLB

Well obviously QB is out right? Bradford is there guy, been stated numerous times.

So that leaves Clowney and Mack for us with wherever our early pick is(#2-#6).

Now if both Clowney and Mack are gone by #6, then at least one of Watkins/Matthews/Robinson will be available and we will grab whichever is available or rated highest if more than one is there.

But if Mack or Clowney is available anywhere we are picking with our first pick, It is looking like one of them will be the choice.

Disclaimer: I prefer Watkins/Robinson/Matthews but it just seems like Mack or Clowney will be the pick right now. It's not what I would do. Unfortunate or not?

Thoughts?

 

[leoram]

If our choice is Mack or Clowney, I'm trading down for sure. This draft is deep enough in the first two rounds that even adding just a second rounder this year could net us upgrades at Guard, TE, Corner, and FS.

 

[Stranger]

-I love the idea of adding a dynamic WR like Watkins to our WR corps. Watkins, Austin, Bailey/Quick is a good starting duo.

But....Snead has said they want to develop our current WR's, so Watkins might be out.

It's the Silly Season. Nothing Snisher says can be counted upon right now.

 

[Tron]

It's the Silly Season. Nothing Snisher says can be counted upon right now.

That is true, maybe I'm reading in between the lines to much, but I think it is quite possible still.

 

[RamsJunkie]

It's the Silly Season. Nothing Snisher says can be counted upon right now.

DING DING DING! We have a winner. I think they are gonna do everything they can to trade down and just let the draft come to them.

 

[RamzFanz]

I don't know if they can get a trade down to 7 or less, but I would jump all over that. All of the top guys would fill a hole or elevate the position.

 

[fearsomefour]

If the choice was between Mack and Clowney I would take Clowney for sure, Im not in love with Mack.
The Jags resigned Henne, the Bucs brought in McCown, so at least a couple of teams have positioned themselves to NOT have to draft a QB. This QB class is very overrated in my opinion.
I would not trade down as far as six. The idea that 3 of the top 5 picks could go QB is a lot less certain than it was. The pick to me is still T. That pick solves a couple of problems both currently and in the future. If the Rams do trade down we may be looking at Lewan at T instead of the big two.

 

[Angry Ram]

They just re-signed Jo-Lonn Dunbar to a 2 year deal. They took Alec Ogletree in the 1st last year. They have James Laurinaitis for the long term. Don't think they are taking a LB w/ the 2nd pick.

There isn't a need for an iffy DE.

WR is out. They have invested a number of picks into the position.

Tackle is the only one that is in question, either b/c of injury (Jake Long) or long term uncertainty (Joe Barksdale). My preference is Jake Matthews, but right now I would say they are going for Greg Robinson. No reason, just a feeling. And if they stay @ #2.

 

[tonyl711]

I don't get why you would think WR is out, if it comes down to Watkins, Clowney and Mack, I think the WR corp would need more of a lift than the Dline, the Dline has proven they can get the job done at a high rate with who they have now, I cant see taking a part time player (Mack) that high, IMO its OT or WR with the first pick.

 

[mr.stlouis]

First, let me say this, our first pick in the draft is really hard for me to figure out. So many variables and good players. Really can't go wrong with whoever they pick.

Lets say we stay at #2 or even trade down to as low as #6

-I love the idea of adding a dynamic WR like Watkins to our WR corps. Watkins, Austin, Bailey/Quick is a good starting duo.

But....Snead has said they want to develop our current WR's, so Watkins might be out.

-Matthews/Robinson could both be good replacements for Long when we let him go in a year or two. They also would be great at guard. Robinson would be the better guard, and Matthews the better tackle if someone goes down.

But.....We already have a "swing tackle" in Saffold and really all our line needs is a LG to be complete, along with guard and tackle depth of course. So they both could be out.

What does that leave early in the 1st?

QB, DE, OLB

Well obviously QB is out right? Bradford is there guy, been stated numerous times.

So that leaves Clowney and Mack for us with wherever our early pick is(#2-#6).

Now if both Clowney and Mack are gone by #6, then at least one of Watkins/Matthews/Robinson will be available and we will grab whichever is available or rated highest if more than one is there.

But if Mack or Clowney is available anywhere we are picking with our first pick, It is looking like one of them will be the choice.

Disclaimer: I prefer Watkins/Robinson/Matthews but it just seems like Mack or Clowney will be the pick right now. It's not what I would do. Unfortunate or not?

Thoughts?

I'm excited with any direction they go. Mathews actually excites me the least but I'd still be fully on board.

Mack-Laurenits-Tree would be AMAZING.

I just don't see us getting Clowney...

 

[Mojo Ram]

For me it boils down to the health and durability of our current OLine. On paper it looks good,but that is no guarantee and protecting Bradford has to be the #1 priority. Its also an area devoid of much blue chip talent. Rams need to invest in some long term answers up front IMO.

 

[vabearsfan]

Just from what I found out from the Texans Message Board, don't be surprised if Mack is gone by the first pick. The board was split on who they wanted. It was a close finish and if Bridgewater's pro-day went as poorly as rumored, then it is a decent possibility.

 

[The Rammer]

First, let me say this, our first pick in the draft is really hard for me to figure out. So many variables and good players. Really can't go wrong with whoever they pick.

Lets say we stay at #2 or even trade down to as low as #6

-I love the idea of adding a dynamic WR like Watkins to our WR corps. Watkins, Austin, Bailey/Quick is a good starting duo.

But....Snead has said they want to develop our current WR's, so Watkins might be out.

-Matthews/Robinson could both be good replacements for Long when we let him go in a year or two. They also would be great at guard. Robinson would be the better guard, and Matthews the better tackle if someone goes down.

But.....We already have a "swing tackle" in Saffold and really all our line needs is a LG to be complete, along with guard and tackle depth of course. So they both could be out.

What does that leave early in the 1st?

QB, DE, OLB

Well obviously QB is out right? Bradford is there guy, been stated numerous times.

So that leaves Clowney and Mack for us with wherever our early pick is(#2-#6).

Now if both Clowney and Mack are gone by #6, then at least one of Watkins/Matthews/Robinson will be available and we will grab whichever is available or rated highest if more than one is there.

But if Mack or Clowney is available anywhere we are picking with our first pick, It is looking like one of them will be the choice.

Disclaimer: I prefer Watkins/Robinson/Matthews but it just seems like Mack or Clowney will be the pick right now. It's not what I would do. Unfortunate or not?

Thoughts?

Absolutely no way we go OLB or DE with #2 pick brother! OT or WR and I think that depends what we are given as in trade bait and where we actually draft from. If we draft #2 we go OT probably Jake M.. if we draft 4-6 we Def. going with remaining OT or Watkins. You don't draft a DE or esp. a OLB that high. If your going to gamble with high stakes gamble with the safer commodities which is Mr. Matthews

 

[Yamahopper]

If drafting that high and basing it on some need then figure in the value to the team farther down the road. What may seem like a luxury pick now may be a mainstay 3 years from now.

 

[tonyl711]

Just from what I found out from the Texans Message Board, don't be surprised if Mack is gone by the first pick. The board was split on who they wanted. It was a close finish and if Bridgewater's pro-day went as poorly as rumored, then it is a decent possibility.

the fans on a message board don't have any input on who they draft, just like here, they talk about who they would pick but at least half will be wrong.

 

[Ramathon]

For me it boils down to the health and durability of our current OLine. On paper it looks good,but that is no guarantee and protecting Bradford has to be the #1 priority. Its also an area devoid of much blue chip talent. Rams need to invest in some long term answers up front IMO.

You don't have to have much 'blue chip' talent on the OL to have a good one...depending, of course, on how you define 'blue chip' talent. For all the gnashing of teeth about the Rams' OL, they gave up 8 fewer sacks and 20-some fewer QB hits than the Seattle OL last year....that despite all the injuries and moving of players around.

 

[Ramathon]

...
WR is out. They have invested a number of picks into the position......

Doesn't matter how many have been drafted in the past. If the ones you have aren't getting the job done, you have to keep trying until you get it right. And that doesn't even take into consideration that a team should never quit trying to make any/every position better.

From my view in the cheap seats, we only have 2 'prospects' at WR....Austin & Bailey. Pettis is what Pettis is....a decent #4. But Givens & Quick are little more than 'suspects' at this point.

And to be honest, I'm not entirely sure of Bailey. At this time last year, I had high hopes for Givens in the '13 season after what he showed in his rookie '12 season. But he regressed significantly, IMO. And he showed a lot more in his rookie year than Bailey did last year.

The OL definitely needs attention. But no more so than WR.

 

[RhodyRams]

this is exactly why I am not a GM !!! I have a hard time deciding what to have for breakfast every day !!! Then I just end up having the same thing...toasted everything bagel with cream cheese !!

 

[scifiman]

Robert Quinn is an UFA after this season. So maybe next year we do need a DE. Why not take Clowney now. He scares the heck out of me as to his character but is there an elite DE to draft next year?

 

[CGI_Ram]

Robert Quinn is an UFA after this season. So maybe next year we do need a DE. Why not take Clowney now. He scares the heck out of me as to his character but is there an elite DE to draft next year?

Rams have the rights to Quinn for 2 more years.