Good points and some responses

Quote
SoCalRamFan
I wanted O-Lineman. Why you ask? Because I sat in the stands for every game last year and watched Gurley run into walls and Goff get crushed because he couldn't step up in the pocket or slide left or right. ... My dream draft? Now Lamp and Elflein could of solidified the center of the line for years to come based on draft experts potential. Two possible OG and C pro-bowler lineman. But the Rams passed on both which was surprising for a lot of us. Now If McVay sais they are fine with what they have that means they feel the signing of Whitworth LT and Sullivan C are all that was needed. They essentially replaced the LT and C. This also tells me they felt either the previous offensive scheme was just so bad that the current O-Line wasn't given a chance to succeed or else possibly just too many holes to fill in 1 year and chose McVay offensive scheme skill players first. [SoCalRamFan

Hey, man. You make good points. And please remember that my point is simple: I like it when people indicate the limits of what they know and acknowledge what is unknown.

Your point about watching the OL fail last year is a powerful one. We do KNOW it has been a problem. And I believe we KNOW that Robinson will never be a good LOT. I think we know that we needed an influx of talent. I won't argue against any of that.

I will say that OL performance is not solely related to talent, a point you make as well. I think the situation is tricky in that some of those guys have performed well and the unit in general looked decent and promising the year before. I think every member of our offensive unit played poorly last year because of a profound malaise resulting from gawd-awful coaching leadership. I think it's not necessarily easy to delineate the personnel weakness from the rest of it. It's especially hard with an OL, whose performance is always affected by many issues.

But, I am NOT arguing that our OL was fine. It wasn't. And I really get what you are saying about a dream draft that would begin to solve this long term issue. But, there are a couple of caveats here.

First, one never knows how OL draft picks will work out. That's a limitation on knowledge that ALWAYS applies. Those who wanted a given guy--Lamp?--cannot know if he would have solved everything.

Second, we have another unit that has been weak for many years. Our receivers have sucked. Draft after draft, we have wanted OL and WR, and the picks have gone bad. Year after year, we have ripped the FO for not spending high draft capital on WR.

OK. So here we are in '17 with a limited draft and no #1. In that scenario, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the draft to have solved both problems. We could have taken a couple receivers and a couple of OL. I think the odds are against significant improvement in both areas under those circumstances.

Which means that Snead & Co. faced a choice: throw numbers of mid to low picks at OL or at WR/TE. Or, at least, that seems to have been their reasoning, and to me it seems eminently defensible before the fact. They seem to have decided this a while back and reached out for short term help on the OL in FA. That has been their strategic approach to our problems at BOTH WR/TE and OL.

Now, am I defending it? Only insofar as it seems to me reasonable. It would also, I think, have been reasonable to focus on the OL. Before the fact, we can't know if the organization's read is "right." Sitting here today, I have no idea if any of these multiple WR/TE guys will do much. Maybe they won't. Maybe our OL will prove to be inadequately patched up. That seems nearly as likely as a success.

Nearly, but not quite completely. Because, again, it seems to me that Snead is working with his HC. He is following McVay's vision. And McVay seems to believe that with some good WR/TEs he can move the offense even with a limited OL. Hey. It's worked for years for SEA. It's an approach that has been made to work by some HCs, and I do think there is merit in going with your new HC's vision. It doesn't make much sense to hire a promising young HC, ignore him when he says he needs certain tools, and draft according to a different vision.

Quote
SoCalRamFan
Time will tell, and after we watch the pre season and first couple of games we'll know if they made the right choice or not. Regardless there has been change in Ram Country. Maybe not enough for everyone on this board to agree on the path going forward but enough to offer some hope for more wins than losses in the future which is what every Ram Fan wants.SoCalRamFan

Indeed. And, please, I really ask that you understand my point. I am NOT disputing the sense of need you express. I am NOT arguing that this draft was a good one. It might suck. I am NOT predicting success. I am not asking everyone to "agree on the path going forward." Hell, I dunno at all if we ARE on the right path.

Look. I understand skepticism. I understand doubts. I understand fans beaten up by decades of failure being wary of optimism when so many hopes have failed over the years. I get all of that because I have lived through it. For myself, I work really hard not to get my hopes up until I see something real. The last several years on a different board, I was the one warning against training camp optimism. I'm conditioned by a lot of heartbreaks in almost 50 years of following this team.

But I am saying we need to be honest about what we don't know. Really. That's my point. We have a new HC and DC, the latter proven to be excellent and the former an unknown whiz kid. We have a very different vision shaping up, and we have a GM attempting to adjust the roster to fit that vision. We really don't know a helluva lot, one way or the other, about how it will work out. I want myself to to be honest about that. I don't know. And nobody else does, either.

That's all I am saying.