[Legends]

I still say our best option for a left tackle behind Whit is free-agency. Hope we have been scouring the practice squads etc.
Our luck in drafting o-linemen has not been real positive. Just think we can get a better book on someone already in the league.

[JackPMiller]

I'm on the Martinas Rankin bandwagon. He is an OT from Mississippi State.

[/zn/]

Luck or maybe bad analysis on your part.

You misread that. I said they lucked out in free agency because the vast majority of the time there aren't any good starting caliber LOTs available in free agency...and yet the Rams got one.

I wasn't getting into some moribund war about history.

I was just saying that you cannot count on getting a good veteran LOT in free agency. Therefore you cannot count on replacing Whitworth in free agency. They were lucky that Whitworth was available in free agency in 2017.

The point was simply to realistically assess what the valid options are for replacing your aging LOT...and replacing him isn't that far away. Free agency only came up because it's not a valid option...usually, and that's really by far most of the time, you don't find good LOTs in free agency. Teams tend to keep their good LOTs.

If you want to argue against that, you have to prove somehow that no, teams DO find good starting LOTs in free agency every year.

Otherwise...it's not a likely option.

...

[Elvis]

You misread that. I said they lucked out in free agency because the vast majority of the time there aren't any good starting caliber LOTs available in free agency...and yet the Rams got one.

I wasn't getting into some moribund war about history.

I was just saying that you cannot count on getting a good veteran LOT in free agency. Therefore you cannot count on replacing Whitworth in free agency. They were lucky that Whitworth was available in free agency in 2017.

The point was simply to realistically assess what the valid options are for replacing your aging LOT...and replacing him isn't that far away. Free agency only came up because it's not a valid option...usually, and that's really by far most of the time, you don't find good LOTs in free agency. Teams tend to keep their good LOTs.

If you want to argue against that, you have to prove somehow that no, teams DO find good starting LOTs in free agency every year.

Otherwise...it's not a likely option.

...

You can't count on getting a good LOT with a high draft pick either as we've demonstrated many times since Orlando Pace.

What i think you can count on is a good coaching staff making it work in a variety of ways. And we have one of those.

So i'm not sold on the idea that we need to use this year's 1st round pick on LT. Not that we can't but i just don't see it as an obvious need. Too many other ways to go and we still have Whitworth...

[Hacksaw]

Wheeling-Dealing Les Snead seems to get us where we need to be in the draft.

Lately.

[PARAM]

Luck or maybe bad analysis on your part.

There are 5 starting LT's that were acquired in free agency....
There is 1 acquired via a trade.....
There are 3 who were UDFA....
There are 3 more who were taken in the 3rd round or lower.

That's 12 or 37% of the LT's in the NFL.

That certainly doesn't make the statement "as a rule you do not get starting caliber LOT's after round 2" true. Hell, it doesn't even make it semi accurate.

That being said, of course if you want a starting caliber LOT it's wise to take him in the 1st or 2nd. But that could be said of a starting caliber QB. Or a starting caliber DE. Or a starting caliber CB. Or a starting caliber WR. Sure they can all be had lower and developed or via free agency or via a trade too.

I have to chuckle at some of the fallacies that some folks put out in an attempt to prove their point or opinion.

So in review....how many starting LOTs in the NFL were acquired THIS SEASON via another route than 1st or 2nd round in the draft?

5. This year alone!

[Elmgrovegnome]

They traded up for Goff because they thought he was the BPA, a generational talent.

Plus they moved draft position to get him. If they sat at their original position he would have been picked already. Then BPA becomes a different player. So, in Goff they did both, drafted for need and BPA. That is the only way to draft for need and be consistently successful....as long as the identified player is as good as believed.

[Elmgrovegnome]

Rams traded up in 2016 because they needed a qb. So drafting for need is a real thing and I don;t dismiss it. All other things being equal or at least close to equal, there are times when drafting for need is exactly what you have to do.

Without an at least solid LOT, that offense doesn't function. Whitworth won't last.

Good drafting teams pick players for all kinds of reasons, there is no one true doctrine. BPA, value, fit, need. Depends.

So for me, if there's a left OT who represents decent value at 23, I take him. In contrast, if I take a different position because a player there at 23 represents greater value, and then Whit goes out (plus of course has to be replaced anyway because of age), I am not going to look at a faltering offense with problems at LOT and console myself by going well at least I didn;t draft for need.

Disagree. The only ways to successfully draft for need is to target a specific player and trade up to get him, or get lucky that he falls in your lap.

In the Falcons case they needed a receiver and moved up for the guy they wanted, in Julio. They knew he wouldn't fall to them. At their pick they didn't feel any remaining receivers would be better than other players at other positions.

In your case let's say the Rams pick is at 22. The three tackles they graded as first round talent are off the board. The next best tackle has a mid second round to mid third round grade. You say you would use the 22nd pick on him? Even if an OLB that you rated as the 15th, or 22nd best player is there for the taking.
That is how to run a losing team.

Now, if there really isn't a good enough talent to take at 22, or then if you can trade back closer to where you value that Left Tackle and get another pick or two for it, then that is a good strategy. But you don't pass up what you think will be a great player for an average one.


I'll take it another step with your logic. You better draft another top QB in case Goff goes down to an injury be cause you won't want to watch a faltering offense and be able to say, at least I didn't draft for need. Add Running back too. If Gurley gets injured you will need a top running back to keep your offense from faltering.

[/zn/]

Plus they moved draft position to get him. If they sat at their original position he would have been picked already. Then BPA becomes a different player. So, in Goff they did both, drafted for need and BPA. That is the only way to draft for need and be consistently successful....as long as the identified player is as good as believed.

I don't think teams draft purely for BPA, and not even purely for need. I think it's a combination of fit, and need, and value at the spot (which kind of supercedes BPA as a concept).

For example let's say they take a left OT they like in 2018; next year, even if the highest ranked player in the first round when they pick is another left OT, they're not going to draft a 2nd one in the 1st round in 2019. Besides, the first round grades/ranks on players are usually so close when you're picking in the 20s that it's merely pedantic to say who the best pick is at that point in pure BPA terms. It's your pick, you have a guard graded at 8.1, and a corner graded at 7.9....is that enough of a difference to say you turned down the best player to take one you need more? Yet that's exactly how the grades will usually be when you get to the 2nd half of the first round. More often than not you could pick any one of 5 different players and in each case be viewed as taking the best player (because different people grade differently so micro differences get blurred).

Do you need the position or not.
Is the player a fit for what you do.
Is he good enough to represent value at the spot where he is picked.

As I said "BPA" disappears into that third criteria anyway.


...

[/zn/]

You can't count on getting a good LOT with a high draft pick either as we've demonstrated many times since Orlando Pace.

What i think you can count on is a good coaching staff making it work in a variety of ways. And we have one of those.

So i'm not sold on the idea that we need to use this year's 1st round pick on LT. Not that we can't but i just don't see it as an obvious need. Too many other ways to go and we still have Whitworth...

We agree they have a good coaching staff, we agree they draft well, so if they do take a good left OT in the draft, we can assume it;s a good idea.

Meanwhile, the point you disagreed with was a minor aside that came up in a discussion about how they will replace an aging LOT. Along with saying other things about that, I mentioned that you can't count on free agency for that because good LOTs are seldom available in free agency. So, yes, the odds are better that you can find a good LOT in the first round than in free agency. Good LOTs seldom make it to free agency...teams keep them. In the draft, there are just more of them.

In terms of is it a need, I am thinking of this: Whitworth is 37 and already declining. Teams need good left OTs...even teams with good coaches. So I see it as a need.

.