Quote
RockRam
The point is that you can't pick a D player and an O player at the same time. So, assuming two co-equal players are available, one D, one O, which do you take? My view is to take the O player because we have real weaknesses there.
Your view seems to be to take the D player to either strengthen a strength or at least to keep it strong.

And I think this is the question the Rams have probably already debated among themselves and resolved it.
We'll (probably) find out the answer late next week.

That's a fair question. And not that people are supposed to memorize my posts ...but really, I already answered it earlier on. This is how I defined the issue:

Quote

Nothing that happened in 2016, it seem to me, is an excuse for the Rams to reach for need with their top picks.

Reaching for need is never a good thing.

If the draft falls to them with a strong set of offensive picks they will not be reaching for need, of course

.

At the same time yes OLB is a need too. We don't know how Quinn will do after 2 years worth of being injured. Barwin is on a one year and is getting up there in years. Without an edge rusher a 3/4 like this does not work, and, you need 2 (in fact that's part of the point of this defense--the offense doesn;t know who the 4th pass rusher will be). That means 2 next year too.

You're not protecting Goff if the defense is not dominant or slips.

But, again, I defined this originally as saying don't reach for need, meaning on offense. So to answer your question with another question, if when the Rams are picking they have both a WR and edge rusher sitting there who are about about equal on their board, and they take the WR, are they reaching for need?

Cause that's how I defined my view on this. I am against reaching for need regardless of the perception of the need.

Fair enough?


,,,

.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/22/2017 07:39AM by zn.