Rams get number 1 pick!

[Ramfan128]

It's really strange, but it feels like this move will help Seattle beat the Rams. Not because I have anything against Wentz or Goff, but because it seems like every time the Rams trot out a replacement level QB against Seattle, that QB plays an awesome game totally at random and the Rams win.

Also, Seattle's history against rookie QBs is pretty strong. It's hard to beat Seattle's defense with a tiny playbook.

In the long term this might be bad news for Seattle, but I get the feeling that this helps Seattle in 2016.

I agree with your assessment. I would like to think we beat Seattle in the home opener this year....but I can't see it if our rookie is starting. If it's Keenum, I could see it though...and then I don't think any team could possibly defeat Seattle on Thursday Night Football in Seattle.

 

[rideaducati]

I am stunned by how stupid the Rams consistently are.

Not overpaying for Janoris Jenkins. Letting Long and Laurinitis walk as they enter their decline, getting rid of Cook, draft Aaron Donald, drafting Gurley, tagging Trumaine, drafting EJ Gaines in round 6, Hekker, Tavon.

How does all of that add up to being stupid?

I'll throw in that they beat Seattle twice last season. If the Rams are that stupid then what is Seattle?

A playoff team.

 

[scutterhawk]

I am stunned by how stupid the Rams consistently are.

Not overpaying for Janoris Jenkins. Letting Long and Laurinitis walk as they enter their decline, getting rid of Cook, draft Aaron Donald, drafting Gurley, tagging Trumaine, drafting EJ Gaines in round 6, Hekker, Tavon.

How does all of that add up to being stupid?

I'll throw in that they beat Seattle twice last season. If the Rams are that stupid then what is Seattle?

Even with shitty 0-Line play and the two losses to the Rams; "What Seattle Is?" still In the Playoffs.

 

[Chukarhawk]

I think this is a really bad move. You don't trade up to the first pick for middling talent. neither of these guys are franchise guys. The best case would be a Ryan Tannehill type talent. 2nd tier at best. As a hawk fan I love the poor decision making.

 

[Ramfan128]

I think this is a really bad move. You don't trade up to the first pick for middling talent. neither of these guys are franchise guys. The best case would be a Ryan Tannehill type talent. 2nd tier at best. As a hawk fan I love the poor decision making.

It doesn't matter what we gave up because we have had so many draft picks the last few years.

Even if he's just a middling talent, it will be better than what we've had at QB. Making sweeping statements like "You don't move up for that type of talent" or "they mortgaged the future" without context is ignorant. All we really gave up were draft picks this year and a 1st rounder next year. Giving up the 1st rounder next year will help with the salary cap, so it could be viewed as a blessing in disguise.

Not to mention that there are plenty of people who disagree with you....Goff or Wentz could become top 5 QBs. It wasn't too long ago that Blake Bortles was thought of as much the same as these two....he's already better than Tannehill. Nobody really knows what these guys will become...

What we do know is that they will be going into a great situation...not many guys get drafted number 1 overall by the team that had the 15th pick.

 

[Chukarhawk]

Yikes, Bortles? This draft is super deep, not the draft for mortgaging the future for "also rans". Like I said, have at it rams!! by all means take one of these guys at number one. I will be laughing for the next 3 years.

 

[TwistedHusky]

"Hitting on a QB" is rough. Now the success rate is skewed because bad organizations make bad decisions, but the numbers are daunting. Wilson is an outlier, in fact so is Brees.

Here is the reality:

The changes in the rules that favor the QB make it almost impossible for a team with an average or bad QB to compete, even if they have top tier players in other positions.
However a great QB can make a bad team better in 3 or 4 years, and great QBs usually keep their team near the top.

So you have to sell out to get a great QB. But the chances? That draft game has worse odd than a rigged ring-toss at the State Fair.

Take the top 15 QBs at the start of last year. Not in any order but:
1 - Aaron Rodgers, 2005 24th pick in 1st round (2nd)
2 - Ben R, 2004 11th pick in 1st Round (3rd)
3 - Andrew Luck, 2012 1st pick in 1st Round (1st)
4 - Tom Brady, 2000 33rd pick in 6th round (7th)
5 - Matt Ryan, 2008 3rd pick in 1st Round (1st)
6 - Philip Rivers, 2004 4th pick in 1st Round (4th)
7 - Drew Brees, 2001 1st pick in 2nd Round (2nd)
8 - Tony Romo (Wasnt he a UDFA?)
9 - Russell Wilson, 2012 12th pick in the 3rd Round (6th)
10 - Peyton Manning, 1998 1st pick in the 1st Round (1st)
11 - Cam Newton, 2011 1st pick in the 1st Round (1st)
12 - Joe Flacco, 2008 18th pick in the 1st Round (2nd)
13 - Matthew Stafford, 2009 1st pick in the 1st Round (1st)
14 - Ryan Tannehill, 2012 1st pick in the 3rd Round (3rd)
15 - Eli Manning, 2004 1st pick in the 1st Round (1st)
*Number in brackets is QB order taken in that year.

On average there are 3 selections in the 1st round of QBs. As you can see, for the most part you seem to have better odds at a top tier QB as the 1st overall pick, which you must often tank to get. But years where the #1 pick was a QB and did not turn into a top five QB include: 2010, 2009, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2002, 1999. (Leaving out Vick in 2001 and 2009 is debatable but Stafford to me is not a game-changer type). So 7 in close to 15 years having the 1st pick didn't get you the franchise QB.

That says that over an almost 20 year period, one in which 3 QBs are chosen in the 1st round and over 10 are chosen per draft, the best QBs come from: 1998, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2012, 2012.

Which shows that there are regularly 1-2 (if not three) year periods where no QBs are high quality, no matter how high the pick. And in most years, only 1 QB is coming out of the mix.

So what happens if you sell out to get the big QB because you have no chance without one?

Well unless it is 2012, 2011, 2005, 2004, 2001* (so five years in close to 15), you pretty much mortgaged everything to be barely average (* for Flacco in 2008 but I am still not sold on Ryan or Stafford, and while Brady came in 2000 nobody was going to pick him with the 1st pick period. Anyone with the 1st pick misses him unless they are psychic)

Qbs 2014 ? Carr, Bortles, Bridgewater

2013 Glennon

2012 Luck, Wilson (Cousins, Osweiler)

2011 Cam Newton

2010 ?

2009 Stafford

2008 Ryan, Flacco

2007 ?

2006 Cutler

2005 Smith, Rodgers

2004 Ben, Eli, Rivers, Schaub

2003 ?

2002 ?

2001 Vick, Brees

2000 Tom Brady

This means 2/3 of the time - selling out to get the great QB results in very little benefit.

All I can say is good luck LA, you will need it.

(ALSO: Looking at the #s makes it really clear just how amazing the Wilson find was, since only Brady, Brees and Wilson did something special as non-1st round picks in the recent near 20 year period. )

 

[canfan]

This feels more like a make a splash to sell seats in LA move than anything else.

I get the feeling it will end up looking more like the kind of splash you get when a turd hits the water

 

[Ramfan128]

Yikes, Bortles? This draft is super deep, not the draft for mortgaging the future for "also rans". Like I said, have at it rams!! by all means take one of these guys at number one. I will be laughing for the next 3 years.

Blake Bortles is an "also ran"? Yikes...did you watch any Jaguars games last year? He's one of the best young up and coming QBs in the NFL...right there with David Carr.

 

[Ramfan128]

"Hitting on a QB" is rough. Now the success rate is skewed because bad organizations make bad decisions, but the numbers are daunting. Wilson is an outlier, in fact so is Brees.

Here is the reality:

The changes in the rules that favor the QB make it almost impossible for a team with an average or bad QB to compete, even if they have top tier players in other positions.
However a great QB can make a bad team better in 3 or 4 years, and great QBs usually keep their team near the top.

So you have to sell out to get a great QB. But the chances? That draft game has worse odd than a rigged ring-toss at the State Fair.

Take the top 15 QBs at the start of last year. Not in any order but:
1 - Aaron Rodgers, 2005 24th pick in 1st round (2nd)
2 - Ben R, 2004 11th pick in 1st Round (3rd)
3 - Andrew Luck, 2012 1st pick in 1st Round (1st)
4 - Tom Brady, 2000 33rd pick in 6th round (7th)
5 - Matt Ryan, 2008 3rd pick in 1st Round (1st)
6 - Philip Rivers, 2004 4th pick in 1st Round (4th)
7 - Drew Brees, 2001 1st pick in 2nd Round (2nd)
8 - Tony Romo (Wasnt he a UDFA?)
9 - Russell Wilson, 2012 12th pick in the 3rd Round (6th)
10 - Peyton Manning, 1998 1st pick in the 1st Round (1st)
11 - Cam Newton, 2011 1st pick in the 1st Round (1st)
12 - Joe Flacco, 2008 18th pick in the 1st Round (2nd)
13 - Matthew Stafford, 2009 1st pick in the 1st Round (1st)
14 - Ryan Tannehill, 2012 1st pick in the 3rd Round (3rd)
15 - Eli Manning, 2004 1st pick in the 1st Round (1st)
*Number in brackets is QB order taken in that year.

On average there are 3 selections in the 1st round of QBs. As you can see, for the most part you seem to have better odds at a top tier QB as the 1st overall pick, which you must often tank to get. But years where the #1 pick was a QB and did not turn into a top five QB include: 2010, 2009, 2007, 2005, 2003, 2002, 1999. (Leaving out Vick in 2001 and 2009 is debatable but Stafford to me is not a game-changer type). So 7 in close to 15 years having the 1st pick didn't get you the franchise QB.

That says that over an almost 20 year period, one in which 3 QBs are chosen in the 1st round and over 10 are chosen per draft, the best QBs come from: 1998, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2012, 2012.

Which shows that there are regularly 1-2 (if not three) year periods where no QBs are high quality, no matter how high the pick. And in most years, only 1 QB is coming out of the mix.

So what happens if you sell out to get the big QB because you have no chance without one?

Well unless it is 2012, 2011, 2005, 2004, 2001* (so five years in close to 15), you pretty much mortgaged everything to be barely average (* for Flacco in 2008 but I am still not sold on Ryan or Stafford, and while Brady came in 2000 nobody was going to pick him with the 1st pick period. Anyone with the 1st pick misses him unless they are psychic)

Qbs 2014 ? Carr, Bortles, Bridgewater

2013 Glennon

2012 Luck, Wilson (Cousins, Osweiler)

2011 Cam Newton

2010 ?

2009 Stafford

2008 Ryan, Flacco

2007 ?

2006 Cutler

2005 Smith, Rodgers

2004 Ben, Eli, Rivers, Schaub

2003 ?

2002 ?

2001 Vick, Brees

2000 Tom Brady

This means 2/3 of the time - selling out to get the great QB results in very little benefit.

All I can say is good luck LA, you will need it.

(ALSO: Looking at the #s makes it really clear just how amazing the Wilson find was, since only Brady, Brees and Wilson did something special as non-1st round picks in the recent near 20 year period. )

This is very interesting, but I would make two points about why this situation is different:

First, we gave up FAR less to move up 14 spots than the Redskins did to move up 4 spots. After next year's draft, we still will have had more picks than we should have over the years that Fisher/Snead have been with the Rams. So we really aren't giving much of anything up. Also have to take into account that financially, the QB won't be getting paid much (compared to other QBs)

The only thing that matters is whether the QB turns out...what we gave up is irrelevant and won't hurt the franchise...but having the QB not work out will (as it would any team). Which brings me to my second point...

In the common draft era, we are the best team to draft a QB number 1 overall. That makes a difference for a few reasons...one, we don't have that many holes to fill, which will likely lead to early success ala Russell Wilson with the Seahawks. Two, all we need is for this QB to be slightly above average....or maybe even just average. We've been dealing with below average for 10 years, and this team was built to win with average QB play.

 

[Popeyejones]

The other way to look at those data is that the between 1/3 and 1/2 of the top 15 QBs in the NFL were picked #1 overall.

The NFL is filled with misses at every single position, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find another position group in which that many of the top 15 starters at the position were the first one's off the board for their position in their respective draft years.

It's all flukey, QBs cost a lot, but from that data I see further explanation for why the Rams are rolling the dice on this move.

The takeaway is that you want the chance of having a better than average QB, you better be willing to get the #1 pick to do so.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Exactly the point.

The days of being able to draft Brunnel in the 5th round and still be competitive or go to the playoffs? Pretty much gone.

You cannot be competitive in today's NFL without a great (top 10 if not top 7) QB.

In the past, you could win in the playoffs without winning the QB lottery because you got a great RB or great WRs or a great defense. Not really the case anymore. The rules are (esp the 5 yd contact rule and the pass interference rule) are slanted to favor the QBs.

So if you want to be a playoff contender, you have to win the QB lottery - and risk it all for the #1 pick, since rarely do you get anything in the later rounds that actually benefits you - even with 12 QBs taken per draft.

And yet, even when you risk it all to get a top QB pick, 2 out of 3 of those (if not 3 of 4) times - you end up getting nothing you can use.

So given that, maybe a 20-30% chance of hitting on a good QB, but given when we saw this year - do the QBs really look like a once in 4 years collection? Or is it more likely this is one of the years where winning the #1 pick doesn't really get you much past a Ryan or Stafford? (if that?)

 

[Trenchbroom]

It took the Seattle Seahawks almost 35 years to get a true superstar, All Pro QB. That's how hard it is to find one in this league.

 

[RedAlice]

It took the Seattle Seahawks almost 35 years to get a true superstar, All Pro QB. That's how hard it is to find one in this league.

Well, it would certainly make the division more fun if we could both manage to have one at the same time.

 

[rideaducati]

Yikes, Bortles? This draft is super deep, not the draft for mortgaging the future for "also rans". Like I said, have at it rams!! by all means take one of these guys at number one. I will be laughing for the next 3 years.

Blake Bortles is an "also ran"? Yikes...did you watch any Jaguars games last year? He's one of the best young up and coming QBs in the NFL...right there with David Carr.

David Carr?

 

[bigskydoc]

The only thing that matters is whether the QB turns out...what we gave up is irrelevant and won't hurt the franchise...but having the QB not work out will (as it would any team). Which brings me to my second point...

In the common draft era, we are the best team to draft a QB number 1 overall. That makes a difference for a few reasons...one, we don't have that many holes to fill, which will likely lead to early success ala Russell Wilson with the Seahawks. Two, all we need is for this QB to be slightly above average....or maybe even just average. We've been dealing with below average for 10 years, and this team was built to win with average QB play.

This

 

[Rambitious]

If they hit on this they will be a strong contender for years, if they miss they will suck for years. All or nothing move, just made this year's draft a lot more exciting.

Exactly. They had to do it IMO. The window of opportunity can close very quickly. The Rams Defense is good enough, the Oline looked like it could be good. The Running game is there. QB and WR are the last big pieces. If they don't get a good QB in the next three or four years then who knows how many pieces to the puzzle start to decline, or leave via free agency. This was all about timing and the time was right.

Amen Brudah