Rams Failed in 2026 Draft Approach

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
They got McDuffie with the 29th pick and by securing Simpson at 13, they were able to trade next yrs #1 for Garrett. That's immediate impact.

So your comment is absurd. Now, you can't account for injuries. Any rookie could also get hurt as Garrett and McDuffie have.
He's talking about rookies for this year and unfortunately he is correct. We aren't getting anything from this draft class this year because they were not drafted for that. I said this exact type of criticism would happen in the preseason if the Rams somehow faltered where it could be questioned if a better draft approach would have helped with this year. Its not fair to the rookies we drafted but it can definitely be argued to no end that the Rams fucked up in not trying to secure better depth than this year. Time will always tell and right now, as of this moment, it does look really fucking bad, no 2 ways around that.
 
And if Ty Simpson turns into Brock Purdy/Bo Nix, and Max Klare turns into Terrance Ferguson this will go down as a GREAT Draft, while the 2026 "now" draft picks might've finished us a game out of the Playoffs instead of 2 or 3.
But don't you see.....that's not it. It was about the draft, this failed plan of the Rams. But it was also much more. It was about not acquiring experienced vets. And it was about this being an "All In" year. And it was about losing Verse, a young up and coming talent. And it was about not being 2 or 3 deep with our backups. And it was about us fans....or our inability to see that and acknowledge that and thank Pupped for enlightening us with it all.

Found this, it may help:

An attention whore is an informal slang term denoting a person who blatantly seeks to attract notice through provocative, overly dramatic, or undignified actions. The phrase originated in American English, with its first recorded usage dating to the early 2000s in online communities, though dictionaries note formal entries emerging around 2015–2020. It combines "attention" with "whore," the latter historically referring to a prostitute but here repurposed pejoratively to imply desperate or excessive solicitation of validation, similar to how "drama queen" or "spotlight hog" functions in colloquial language. The term gained traction in internet culture and media commentary, often applied to public figures or social media users exhibiting attention-seeking behaviors, such as reality TV participants who embrace the label self-deprecatingly. Psychologically, the behaviors described by the term align with patterns seen in histrionic personality disorder (HPD), a Cluster B personality disorder characterized by pervasive attention-seeking, exaggerated emotions, and discomfort when not the center of focus. Individuals with HPD may engage in theatrical displays, provocative interactions, or rapidly shifting emotions to garner approval, with prevalence estimated at 0.4% to 1.8% in the general population, more commonly diagnosed in women due to cultural biases. While the slang is derogatory and non-clinical, it reflects broader societal critiques of excessive self-promotion, particularly in digital spaces where validation metrics like likes and shares amplify such tendencies. The term's misogynistic undertones have been noted in analyses of online hate speech, where it disproportionately targets women for perceived attention-grabbing.

The term "attention whore" emerged as internet slang in the early 2000s, primarily within online forums and collaborative wikis, to derogatorily label individuals perceived as excessively seeking validation or notice from others. It evolved from earlier phrases like "attention seeker," a more neutral descriptor dating back to at least the mid-20th century in psychological and colloquial contexts, by appending "whore" to amplify the insult with connotations of moral or behavioral excess. This repurposing draws from the longstanding pejorative use of "whore," historically tied to sex work and promiscuity since the 12th century, but extended metaphorically in slang to imply "selling out" or trading integrity for personal gain, as seen in parallel terms like "rep whore" or "karma whore" in digital spaces. The earliest documented use appears on May 19, 2000, in a discussion on the Everything2 wiki about the axiom "It's better to be hated than to be ignored," where user moJoe referenced being labeled an "attention whore" to defend against accusations of attention-seeking posting. By mid-2001, the phrase surfaced in Usenet groups such as alt.y2trolls, where it was deployed to criticize a poster's disruptive behavior for notoriety. Additional early instances include a January 2001 thread on the Straight Dope message board equating it with "insecure attention whore" in rock music fandom clichés, and November 2002 discussions on automotive forums like the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club distinguishing it from benign online engagement. The term proliferated through early 2000s blogging platforms and message boards, reflecting the growing culture of anonymous online interaction where attention economies incentivized performative behaviors. By 2003, it received its first formal definition on Urban Dictionary, cementing its place in web lexicon amid the rise of platforms like LiveJournal and early social networks
 
This is just a WAYYYYY over the top season of injury problems. Nothing normal about it. Myles Garrett for SEVEN games. Top 2 Corners, McDuffie for a handful of games, Watson for a handful of games, THEN season. Nacua for games early, now FOUR more (at least). Davante for 6-10. Ferguson, who was KEY, for 90% of the season. I never cry injuries to my friends and even on here, but this season is WELL OUTSIDE the realm of normal.

We will carry on, and try to win ballgames. But fuck, in the end I might well be citing injuries as an excuse which I HATE doing.

Staff and AD need to give it one more honest try in '27.
 
Taking Simpson and trading a first for McDuffie was brilliant use of premium picks. A masterclass by Snead. Vision vs hey let’s take the best WR. Snead got it right
I will say that I understand the first round approach even though I'm not the biggest fan of it. I do question everything else after that though. McDuffie is a stud and the right move because he's proven for years with the Chiefs and now proving with us that he's a top flight talent. Saying Snead got it right with Simpson isn't true just because some people strongly believe that. No one knows that part at all and no matter what you believe there, way more time needs to pass before that ultimate determination is made.
 
I actually wrote out a ridiculously long “alternate” draft post.. and didn’t put it up.
My problems with the draft start at the top and reach to the bottom. Wasting picks to trade up for a guy like CJ as opposed to taking multiple shots at athletes who could at least fight for a roster spot and maybe boost special teams..
they could’ve drafted for Boston AND Branch and boosted the WR group AND returns..
anyway.. my chief complaint.. spending your top picks on guys you have absolutely no expectation will contribute as rookies was a waste in a potential SB year.

So.. maybe it wouldn’t have worked out.. but then would’ve been trying to address obvious issues with this year’s roster.
Specifically WR depth, return talent and ST athleticism.
You're doing nothing more than typical Monday morning quarterbacking as Dieter said. It's silly.

The league considered Boston a 2nd round talent so he wasn't ever gonna be in play at 13. You're also ignoring the fact that McVay has to consider whatever WR they draft a scheme fit. We don't know if Boston or Branch fit. Above @jrry32 mentions that their alternative plan was De'Zhaun Stribling. If that's the case, we may not have gotten anything from him this year either.

Stribling being the alternative plan shows that they considered WRs early. That's also confirmed by draft day reports that they had some WRs targeted in the 2nd round who were selected a few picks before they took Klare. Obviously, by the time they got to their pick, they liked Klare more than the remaining WRs. Even if they had selected a WR in the 2nd round instead of Klare, the expectation may not have been that they would be a big contributor this year.

It's unlikely that even if they had executed another plan bent more towards 2026 that those rookies' impacts would have made up for the heavy injuries we've sustained.
 
You're doing nothing more than typical Monday morning quarterbacking as Dieter said. It's silly.

The league considered Boston a 2nd round talent so he wasn't ever gonna be in play at 13. You're also ignoring the fact that McVay has to consider whatever WR they draft a scheme fit. We don't know if Boston or Branch fit. Above @jrry32 mentions that their alternative plan was De'Zhaun Stribling. If that's the case, we may not have gotten anything from him this year either.

Stribling being the alternative plan shows that they considered WRs early. That's also confirmed by draft day reports that they had some WRs targeted in the 2nd round who were selected a few picks before they took Klare. Obviously, by the time they got to their pick, they liked Klare more than the remaining WRs. Even if they had selected a WR in the 2nd round instead of Klare, the expectation may not have been that they would be a big contributor this year.

It's unlikely that even if they had executed another plan bent more towards 2026 that those rookies' impacts would have made up for the heavy injuries we've sustained.
I’m sorry.. I’m responding to the utter certainty that “nothing would’ve mattered” with, “bullshit.”

Because you cannot pretend your alternate realty is any more likely than mine.

I’ve shown “multiple” WRs selected after Klare could be making an impact.
Multiple.
And… “impact” here could simply be reduced snaps for Puka.. or a slightly more efficient Offense that would’ve had him off the field.

This is a bizarre place.. it’s okay to second guess McVay on play calls, etc.., but don’t DARE question draft picks!!!

Please.
 
He's talking about rookies for this year and unfortunately he is correct. We aren't getting anything from this draft class this year because they were not drafted for that. I said this exact type of criticism would happen in the preseason if the Rams somehow faltered where it could be questioned if a better draft approach would have helped with this year. Its not fair to the rookies we drafted but it can definitely be argued to no end that the Rams fucked up in not trying to secure better depth than this year. Time will always tell and right now, as of this moment, it does look really fucking bad, no 2 ways around that.
McDuffie was the 29th pick. He was acquired with a 26' draft assett. Garrett was acquired because they used a 26' draft pick on a future QB, freeing up that 27' #1 pick for Garrett.

That is utilizing 26' draft capital to impact the 26' season. Not sure any team made more of an effort to add immediate impact this year, via using draft capital, than the Rams have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coliseum Ram
You're doing nothing more than typical Monday morning quarterbacking as Dieter said. It's silly.

The league considered Boston a 2nd round talent so he wasn't ever gonna be in play at 13. You're also ignoring the fact that McVay has to consider whatever WR they draft a scheme fit. We don't know if Boston or Branch fit. Above @jrry32 mentions that their alternative plan was De'Zhaun Stribling. If that's the case, we may not have gotten anything from him this year either.

Stribling being the alternative plan shows that they considered WRs early. That's also confirmed by draft day reports that they had some WRs targeted in the 2nd round who were selected a few picks before they took Klare. Obviously, by the time they got to their pick, they liked Klare more than the remaining WRs. Even if they had selected a WR in the 2nd round instead of Klare, the expectation may not have been that they would be a big contributor this year.

It's unlikely that even if they had executed another plan bent more towards 2026 that those rookies' impacts would have made up for the heavy injuries we've sustained.
They DEFINITELY wouldn't have made up for injuries sustained.
 
McDuffie was the 29th pick. He was acquired with a 26' draft assett. Garrett was acquired because they used a 26' draft pick on a future QB, freeing up that 27' #1 pick for Garrett.

That is utilizing 26' draft capital to impact the 26' season. Not sure any team made more of an effort to add immediate impact this year, via using draft capital, than the Rams have.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with that part and move, but its still correct that the rookies drafted this year will have no impact on this year. Not sure why you are mixing in proven talent vs rookies when someone says the rookies drafted this year will have no impact, but ok lol....Also I'm not a believer that Garrett was only traded for because we drafted Simpson. I've been thru this exercise already on that part and have zero interest in beating that poor dead horse :laugh2:
 
I’m sorry.. I’m responding to the utter certainty that “nothing would’ve mattered” with, “bullshit.”

Because you cannot pretend your alternate realty is any more likely than mine.

I’ve shown “multiple” WRs selected after Klare could be making an impact.
Multiple.
And… “impact” here could simply be reduced snaps for Puka.. or a slightly more efficient Offense that would’ve had him off the field.

This is a bizarre place.. it’s okay to second guess McVay on play calls, etc.., but don’t DARE question draft picks!!!

Please.
I made a strong proclamation to match yours. If mine is BS, so is yours.

That was the point. Kudos for catching on!

Conjuring up alternative reality scenarios is stupidity.

Again, throwing out the names of multiple WRs is mere hindsight. That's not a helpful, constructive, or realistic approach. Especially if you don't even know if those WRs fit our scheme or player profile.

History says it's probable that whoever we selected at the bottom of the 2nd wouldn't be a big contributor or affect our top target's snaps.
 
Last edited:
They DEFINITELY wouldn't have made up for injuries sustained.
Whatchoo talkin bout willis?

We can certainly pick a name.....Caleb Douglas or Antonio Williams.....and say they would have made a huge difference. Because it's done all the time. It's called 20/20 hindsight.

So, it would have made up for the injuries in spades. And why do we know that? Because there's no way to prove it wouldn't. See, these hypothetical scenarios are undefeated. Because there's just no way to know. And that's how these 20/20 experts argue their point. There's no way to prove them wrong. So they must right, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coliseum Ram
Don't get me wrong, I agree with that part and move, but its still correct that the rookies drafted this year will have no impact on this year. Not sure why you are mixing in proven talent vs rookies when someone says the rookies drafted this year will have no impact, but ok lol....Also I'm not a believer that Garrett was only traded for because we drafted Simpson. I've been thru this exercise already on that part and have zero interest in beating that poor dead horse :laugh2:
A GM has to plan out past the current year. Simpson and the Garrett trade definitely were intertwined. They needed a young prospect to work under Stafford and be ready in case he retires in the next 2 years. Again, that freed up future draft capital for Garrett. Might also be a reason they decide to trade for someone tomorrow since they don't need draft capital to trade for a QB.

I don't know about you, but I feel a lot better about 27' & 28', knowing that they have a potential young starter and a success plan for the future at the most critical position.

As for rookies and mixing in proven talent with them, I am doing so because some say we didn't maximize our draft capital this year for the 26' season. My argument is that they certainly did. Maybe more than any other team.

McDuffie was obtained with a 26' draft pick. Garrett was obtained because of how they decided to utilize a 26' draft pick. So I am not arguing about rookie development. My point is they used the draft to help this year with immediate and proven talent.
 
This is just a WAYYYYY over the top season of injury problems. Nothing normal about it. Myles Garrett for SEVEN games. Top 2 Corners, McDuffie for a handful of games, Watson for a handful of games, THEN season. Nacua for games early, now FOUR more (at least). Davante for 6-10. Ferguson, who was KEY, for 90% of the season. I never cry injuries to my friends and even on here, but this season is WELL OUTSIDE the realm of normal.

We will carry on, and try to win ballgames. But fuck, in the end I might well be citing injuries as an excuse which I HATE doing.

Staff and AD need to give it one more honest try in '27.
Totally agree with all of this for sure!

The thing with Staff & AD giving it another try in '27 (which I really hope for) would mean they would also need to give up money. Too many key guys that need to be re-signed (Puka, Turner, Dotson, McClendon, Avila). I assume they will let Young, Adams & Parkinson walk. Not sure about Shelton. Normally you would try and backfill through the draft, but lacking draft capital really impacts that strategy.

UGH!!! Just sucks that injuries are preventing us seeing what this team could've been. Nothing worse!
 
A GM has to plan out past the current year. Simpson and the Garrett trade definitely were intertwined. They needed a young prospect to work under Stafford and be ready in case he retires in the next 2 years. Again, that freed up future draft capital for Garrett. Might also be a reason they decide to trade for someone tomorrow since they don't need draft capital to trade for a QB.

I don't know about you, but I feel a lot better about 27' & 28', knowing that they have a potential young starter and a success plan for the future at the most critical position.

As for rookies and mixing in proven talent with them, I am doing so because some say we didn't maximize our draft capital this year for the 26' season. My argument is that they certainly did. Maybe more than any other team.

McDuffie was obtained with a 26' draft pick. Garrett was obtained because of how they decided to utilize a 26' draft pick. So I am not arguing about rookie development. My point is they used the draft to help this year with immediate and proven talent.
Good you feel good about next year or the year after on some "projected talent" but quite frankly, most fans could give 2 shits about that. AD came out of retirement and we went hard at adding some talent. You keep going back to introducing the trades made with our '26 picks but its extremely hard to ignore that our rookies will not help us this year at all. I understand the approach but its still a pretty dam true statement unless they miraculously step up which I highly doubt. Haven't found any drugs that good yet lol
 
It was a massive fail unless Klare surprises.

I don't mind the QB pick. I would have much preferred a roster player. But it was a reasonable decision. Teams can be searching a decade or more for a QB. If you think you have your guy, you take him. Especially if you typically draft late and have two 1st round picks that year with one of them already parlayed into a week 1 massive contributor in McDuffie. But if you're in a short Super Bowl window and going all in, pick #2 can't be inactive on game day if you already know pick #1 is going to red shirt. That is massively arrogant. NFL is year to year. Foot always has to be on the gas. There are TEs available every draft, and you can often snag middling ones via free agency too like we did with Parkinson and Cook. So I don't want to hear about succession planning. Absolutely ZERO reason to draft Klare.
 
  • Thread Winner
Reactions: El Chapo Jr
A GM has to plan out past the current year. Simpson and the Garrett trade definitely were intertwined. They needed a young prospect to work under Stafford and be ready in case he retires in the next 2 years. Again, that freed up future draft capital for Garrett. Might also be a reason they decide to trade for someone tomorrow since they don't need draft capital to trade for a QB.

I don't know about you, but I feel a lot better about 27' & 28', knowing that they have a potential young starter and a success plan for the future at the most critical position.

As for rookies and mixing in proven talent with them, I am doing so because some say we didn't maximize our draft capital this year for the 26' season. My argument is that they certainly did. Maybe more than any other team.

McDuffie was obtained with a 26' draft pick. Garrett was obtained because of how they decided to utilize a 26' draft pick. So I am not arguing about rookie development. My point is they used the draft to help this year with immediate and proven talent.
But don't you see??? THEY COULD HAVE DONE MORE!!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rmfnlt