[dieterbrock]

I’m looking for outside information on evaluating him.
He was playing with backups, but against starters, as far as I know.
Yes, I’m trying to figure out if he could be a functioning backup in case of emergency.
I also don’t envision a tackle drafted in first sitting a year. I would hope he would be someone who could beat out Brown or Hav & upgrade that side of the line.

Ok. So you don’t think we need to draft a replacement for whit, you think we need to upgrade the right side.
Brown has been a real disappointment, he seemed like a diamond in the rough in his rookie year until he got hurt. But he’s never really seemed to get back to that level. Havenstein? Yeah he’s ok, nothing great, nothing terrible. I could see upgrading him, just don’t think it’s as big of a concern as the other areas.

[/zn/]

IF a guy is there at 23 I am fine with drafting an OT that would sit for a year (though he would probably play, just as an injury replacement). I don't see anything wrong with it--drafting one of your team's 2-3 10 year guys is worth that. If there's one there now, it sure beats needing someone in 2019 and either facing a weak draft class at the position or typically thin free agency at LOT or both, as well as being forced to start a rookie there.

They were lucky they had so few OL injuries this year. That's not the norm. It's certainly rare for the Rams. The last time the line made it through an entire season with nothing but a couple of different one game replacements was 2010. Before that it was 1999. So they don't just need depth, they need quality too. A more typical season in terms of OL injuries would demand more from your bench.

They have their stars on defense and some players around them, and where they do need players---NT, OLB, CB---as I said you can find those in rounds 3-5. But you are not likely to find a 10-year defender at 23.

Jamon Brown improved by the game, which is not surprising because everywhere he goes, Kromer develops guards. It's his forte.

[aeneas1]

Fair enough on the Williams stuff and takes on drafting Oline in the first. It's one route that I'd still consider, depending on what happens in FA.
There are a lot of directions this team could go with spending it's FA dollars. A lot. It will be very interesting to see the approach they take and whether we can discern any "big picture" philosophy behind the moves.

i just don't like the idea of drafting a guy high, especially an olineman, and then sitting him, developing him for a year, having him as insurance or an heir apparent, i think that guys that are drafted high should play, be immediate contributors.... that said, there are a lot of ways to skin a cat, and it will be interesting to see what the rams do this offseason.

here's a look at the offensive linemen taken in the first two rounds over the last 3 years, along with the number of games they started as rookies and their pff grades for each year... overwhelmingly these guys were drafted to start as rookies, or at least play a lot as rookies:

re the guys who didn't see a lot of action as rookies (moton, lamp, spriggs, martin, peat, erving, ogbuehi, humphries, fisher and sambrailo), it was mostly because they were either injured or just didn't cut it... for example moton couldn't beat out 4th rounder daryl williams for the lions rt starting job, altho he was given every opportunity, erving and sabrailo just flat out stunk and were traded after just 2 years, fisher started only 1 game his rookie season and, since, started only 3 games last year and 7 this year, while peat has struggled with injuries just about every year he's been in the league.

[/zn/]

re the guys who didn't see a lot of action as rookies (moton, lamp, spriggs, martin, peat, erving, ogbuehi, humphries, fisher and sambrailo), it was mostly because they were either injured or just didn't cut it.

Which, of course, is not relevant to this situation. None of those other teams had to plan for a future replacement for a 37 year old starter.

And of course it is all just simply a matter of pure opinion.

I believe that using a pick in the 20s to solve a future problem at an important position is a good use of resources.

You don;t, you think that's wasteful.

2 different views. Thus far the football gods have not indicated whose side they're taking.

..

[JackPMiller]

Only guy worth considering, is Jamarco Jones. He is expected to be a late 4th to mid 6th round pick. That is if you want to go that way. Williams is too light for the LT position. He is 295. I felt he was better off playing inside, at guard, but still needed to gain some weight.

[aeneas1]

Maybe you missed the part where I said I'd expect him to beat out Brown or Hav while he develops?

not sure i follow?

[dieterbrock]

Maybe you missed the part where I said I'd expect him to beat out Brown or Hav while he develops?

So you’re going to use the 1st round pick to draft an olt but play him at right guard? Or if he plays ort, then Hav is gone, we have to draft another ot next year?

[aeneas1]

Well... it's not a wasted pick if it upgrades the OL.
Yes.. getting a guy who will *ultimately* replace your soon-to-be 37 LT into the fold is a key part.. but if he upgrades your line at the same time.. it's not a wasted pick in any form.

ok, i see what you mean... i guess it just strikes me as a lot of unnecessary shuffling/planning/hoping when you can just draft the guy when you need him... unless, of course, he's that once in a decade can't miss stud that you just have to grab now, but is there anyone in the draft that like that? anyway, i think we're all in favor of upgrading as many units as possible, including the oline, i just don't think worrying about a left tackle at the moment rates as a priority, certainly not a priority in terms of spending a high pick on one when it seems that whit will be back... moreover i'm not convinced that drafting a future lt and playing him at rt in the interim is a proven path? when the time comes, the rams can do a lot to get another left tackle, trade up, free agency, whatever they think is necessary to get the guy they want... and if the rams want to go all in on improving the oline through the draft this season, as in spending a high pick on an olineman, i'd rather they spend the pick on a guard, target the next martin or decastro... then again, i don't think you need to spend a first rounder to get a solid guard (or center).

[dieterbrock]

Sigh..
I'm drafting someone to develop long term as my LT.
I expect to upgrade the right side of the line in the meantime.
Hav's level of play is fairly easy to replace, imo... and happens regularly with mid round picks.

Again... these are my feelings at this point in the process.. before FA. I think the team was *remarkably* fortunate with injuries.. especially on the oline.
I'm not saying other arguments don't have merit.. I'm saying I could see this being a smart move now.
It also allows you to save 10 million on the 19 cap if you feel the tackle you draft is ready.

Well the flaw in your thinking is that you don’t develop an olt by playing org. You develop an Olt by playing Olt.
And by saying you’ll play him at Ort means Havenstein won’t be playing thus you are creating another hole.

[dieterbrock]

I'd disagree on all of that.
You'd have Hav for depth for the year. Quality depth.
And getting experience in the NFL at guard isn't some kind of novel concept I'm inventing.
Yes.. you'd have to replace Hav the next year.. but RT is much, much, much easier to replace.

I can’t recall a 1st round Olt ever being developed at Org and I don’t see why there’s a need to replace Hav when he could still fully develop. The weakness on the line imo is Brown and certainly can look for that in later rounds.
I’m with A1 here that is rather use the 1st rounder and play him at his position, not out of position