Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by IDEXAN, May 22, 2014.
I wouldn't be surprised. Use him where he fits the best.
We had heard this earlier and in another thread, I pointed out how freaked out and opposed some people were to drafting this guy and having him play RT for a few years. Those people must think this is completely insane.
With the rookie salary cap in place, you no longer HAVE to draft a franchise QB with the #1 pick which is what it was turning into there for a few years. You can draft the best guy and play him where he'll do the most benefit for your team. And that applies to other high-range draft choices besides just the #1 spot.
So, personally, I've got no problem with them playing him at G. I would have liked to have had him to solve our RT spot but whatever.
I guess if any team can afford to take a guard (who may develop into a tackle) in the top 5 its the Rams. They have had plenty of high draft picks the last few years.
I think from the time Robinson elected to enter the NFL draft, "everyone" had him pegged to go to the St. Louis Rams.
In my mind, that tells me "everyone" thought they had an issue at the tackle position.
I can't believe "everybody" was that wrong. I don't know. I have no idea what the Rams are thinking about their OL. If they are thinking he'll eventually move out to LT... I find that odd.
i'm all for drafting ugly, and have no problem taking a tackle first (or second) overall - even if it's a right tackle. today's running games, blocking dynamics, and pass protection require talent at both ends to attack and counter defenses. even with my favoritism, i dont think i'd take a guard at #2, especially with the options available. i'd also not risk the #2 on an athletic tackle prospect without being certain how he'll operate in a phone booth. by that logic matthews makes much more sense as someone who can play every position at an elite level, and would translate immediately to guard. robinson despite being the better potential, very well may have lower potential at the position than matthews. unless i missed someone, the ram's biggest holes are with their offensive weapons, and with watkins there that's who i would've taken - grabbing an offensive lineman at 13 if it were such a priority or their bpa donald if not.
the rams get an A+ for getting top tier talents in robinson and donald, and an extra + for beefing the trenches. however, i'd give the same grade if they'd gone with watkins and lewin or martin or even XSF because that route may have done considerably more to improve the team.
I wouldn't have taken him there to play him at guard. I'd have taken Watkins.
I just don't understand this argument that "it's OK to use this very high pick on a non-premium position like guard or inside LB" because the cap hit is less expensive under the new CBA ? Why not take this view: hey I'm getting that franchise LT or DE for less than what I used to have pay. Afterall, if you are gonna have to get him in the open market/free-agency instead of the Draft, he's still gonna cost you a boat-load of money like he always did.
If you were paying a guy more than Peyton Manning, there was more of a feeling that you had to draft Peyton Manning.
Instead of saying, I have to get this LT or this QB, you can now say... which player in this draft is going to have the biggest impact on my team, which player is going to improve my team more than any other player.
Although it's not sexy, sometimes that player isn't an LT or a QB.
Sam Bradford may not be the best QB in the NFL but the Rams didn't feel any of the QBs in this draft were better than he is. With Jake Long and Rodger Saffold, they feel pretty comfortable with their OTs as well.
So they followed what they considered a BPA approach. And the best player available that fit what they want to do was: Robinson. Personally, if I was them, I would have chosen Watkins but then again, I would have chosen Watkins over Clowney, too.
If you're going to draft BPA, you don't worry that much about whether you have a logjam at a position. You draft the best players that fit your schemes. The Rams did that.
Wouldn't be shocked at all. He's a fantastic run blocker, but needs work in pass protection. Put him at LG next to Jake Long and let him develop. In a few years he will be ready to take over full time (Long has 3 years remaining on deal IIRC). They're going to have a pretty solid line for the next few years.
LT - Jake Long
LG - Greg Robinson
C - Scott Wells / Barrett Jones
RG - Rodger Saffold
RT - Joe Barksdale
I don't see how putting a guy at guard is going to help him improve his pass blocking at tackle.
I mean, maybe he'll get good enough at pass blocking if they don't think he's good enough now...
But franchise worthy LT? I have to think through that.
Totally different blocking inside vs. being at tackle. If I had plans on him being my franshise LT, I'd want to start him at RT so he could at least be used to playing tackle in the NFL.
I don't see how playing him at guard is going to make him a better LT in the long run. He's not going to be practicing the things that make a good LT.
But see that's my point, you are paying more, usually much more for a LT in free agency than for a guard or a ILB or a safety, right ? I mean there's a reason you never heard the term "franchise Left Guard" ? And of course the drafting of rookies and signing vets in FA are very interrelated because it's all tied into the cap, which is always a consideration in developing the best roster possible. The cap is a finite resource for all teams of course, and managing it in the best way possible is another way of saying "getting the most bang for your buck".
Here's an example: team A drafts their LT and signs a guard in FA for 10 million guaranteed, vs team B/competitor who drafts a guard but invests 25 M guaranteed in a FA LT. Who do you think has
the advantage over the longer term ?
Good lord you are over complicating this. Yes you can save more at the highest paid positions, but now you can save some at other positions as well whereas previously you would have been paying above the rate for the best in the league, i.e. more positions are now viable choices.
Yeah, I was surprised when I heard they weren't trading the pick. Fisher watched Jake Matthews grow up, really bonded with him. But they're convinced they need to run it down your throat like SEA/49ers.
Jonathan Ogden played guard his rookie season with the Ravens, then the incumbent LT left in free agency. Eventually, Robinson will play LT.
This was my post above.
Exactly my point. Before the rookie salary cap, you were having to pay guys 15-20 million a year. So they had to be Franchise guys. Either QBs, LTs, or pass rushers.
But now, you're not paying that much for your draft pick so you can be more flexible.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?
Would you pay a top-tier Guard 4 million a year for 5 years in FA? Because that's about what Robinson will get paid. They already have a Franchise LT with Jake Long so they can afford to go slow with Robinson, play him at guard, play him wherever they've got a hole, because they're not spending 20 million a year for him.
I think the Holmgren led Seahawks would be remembered in a different light had they managed to keep Steve Hutchinson. They lost a lot of FAs after their Super Bowl appearance, but he was the one, I thought, that made that offense work.
Damn that poison pill.
We had one here in Houston.
Separate names with a comma.