- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 29,877
Run first, play-action offense with a strong defense. One could argue that Donald was the best value, too.
Well, no matter the argument, Donald is on this team and I'm ecstatic.
Run first, play-action offense with a strong defense. One could argue that Donald was the best value, too.
Really agree with this post. Had Watkins or Evans been there at 13 I think the Rams would have picked them. The Rams needed a top end WR, we have a good group of complimentary receivers.The fact that they didn't draft a WR doesn't tell me that they didn't view it as a need. All it showed me was that a super stud like Watkins didn't fall to them at #13. DL wasn't a need either but they grabbed him because of the value he represented. Just like they would have grabbed Clowney had he fallen to #2 even though they didn't need a DE.
The "hype" on Watkins was deserved IMO, which means that it wasn't "exaggerated or extravagant" claims but instead, a spot on evaluation of his abilities. Like you, I'm hoping that Donald, in his own way, will be as valuable to us as Watkins will be for the Bills. Of course he doesn't have to be that valuable because we didn't use the #4 pick to get him.
Really agree with this post. Had Watkins or Evans been there at 13 I think the Rams would have picked them. The Rams needed a top end WR, we have a good group of complimentary receivers.
While I agree with Snead's comments and the draft bore those thoughts out, Watkins wasn't a WR who needed developing and thus didn't fall into the category of WRs he was talking about. So you're talking about apples and Fro considered Watkins and Evans to be oranges. I personally don't agree that Evens was an orange and thus I'm less sure we would have drafted him at #13 if Donald was there too. I think that would have been a close call but i'd have taken Donald. Maybe.Memphis Ram talking apples and Fro talking oranges:
Unlike yourself, I'm not convinced that they would have over Donald. Why? Because of Snead's earlier comments about adding another young WR to develop to a group of young developing WRs already on the roster. Seems those comments held true given they didn't select a WR in one of the deeper WR draft classes.
Uhh, yeah he is. Just like pretty much any rookie receiver. Not sure what makes some people think he isn't..While I agree with Snead's comments and the draft bore those thoughts out, Watkins wasn't a WR who needed developing and thus didn't fall into the category of WRs he was talking about. So you're talking about apples and Fro considered Watkins and Evans to be oranges. I personally don't agree that Evens was an orange and thus I'm less sure we would have drafted him at #13 if Donald was there too. I think that would have been a close call but i'd have taken Donald. Maybe.
While I agree with Snead's comments and the draft bore those thoughts out, Watkins wasn't a WR who needed developing and thus didn't fall into the category of WRs he was talking about. So you're talking about apples and Fro considered Watkins and Evans to be oranges. I personally don't agree that Evens was an orange and thus I'm less sure we would have drafted him at #13 if Donald was there too. I think that would have been a close call but i'd have taken Donald. Maybe.
I'll answer both of you. @jrry32 & @jjab360
Obviously many of us here at the ROD, in the media and in the coaching ranks of the NFL think that there are some WRs you know are going to be great out of the gate.
Calvin Johnson and Julio Jones both put up stats their rookie years that would have easily been better than that of any of the Rams WRs. So if you think that Watkins was in that category, and the Bills obviously did, then you're not talking about development you're talking about refinement. Of course it doesn't mean you're correct in your assessment but I believe that is how the Bills viewed it and I doubt they were alone in that view. They gave up next years 1st and 4th round picks for him and the falcons gave up their first born and the farm for Jones. You don't do that for players you think you need to develop.
That would be incorrect jrry. I'm not using a different word to say the same thing. Getting better at what you do is not the same thing as learning how to do your job.jrry32 having trouble understanding me:
No, I'm talking about development. But you're arguing semantics with refinement. It means the same thing in the context of football.
As far as Calvin goes, he put up 756 yards and 4 TDs as a rookie. The man developed.
There are some...by some I mean not many...WRs that are productive ~1000 yards or ~10 TDs out of the gate...but even they usually need development. Again, the only WR I've seen that was great out of the gate was Randy Moss.(and by great, I mean one of the league's best WRs)
That would be incorrect jrry. I'm not using a different word to say the same thing. Getting better at what you do is not the same thing as learning how to do your job.
Example: Jake Matthews knows how to pass block but he will get better over time as he refines his at pass blocking. Robinson Greg Robinson knows only the rudiments of how to pass block and Boo will have to teach him how to do it. Robinson will need to develop this skill.
BTW, I looked up the stats of both the players I mentioned before I posted my reply so that I wouldn't look any more foolish than normal but thanks anyway.
If haven't explained what I believe to be the fundamental difference between the two in a way that would explain why I said what I did then we'll just keep talking past each other.
But I have a plan.
Let's approach this from a different direction. When you boil down what I've said to its basic essence, it comes down to this:
I believe that there are elite players that don't fit the normal paradigm.
I believe that Snead was referring to the normal WR paradigm in his statement.
I believe that Watkins fits the elite paradigm and not the normal one and thus was not the type of WR he was referring to.
So, when explained in that fashion, do you agree with any of that?
If you don't then conversation over as we will just have to disagree about this.
If you do agree with what I said in those three sentences then do you disagree with my assertion that Watkins fits that elite paradigm?
I don't mean this to sound like I don't think you understand the meaning of those two words so consider this just a refresher.jrry32 still getting it wrong:
Except by your definition of develop, Robinson doesn't need to develop the skill. He needs to refine it. He can pass block. He knows how to pass block. He just has to improve technical aspects of it...he has to become more advanced at it.
However, I also don't believe Watkins is/was an elite WR prospect. I think he was worth a top 5-6 pick but in order to be elite, he'd have to be one of the top 3 or so of the last decade. I didn't rate him THAT highly.
I don't mean this to sound like I don't think you understand the meaning of those two words so consider this just a refresher.
re·fine
riˈfīn/
verb
improve (something) by making small changes, in particular make (an idea, theory, or method) more subtle and accurate.
Matthews needs to make small changes but Robinson needs to make huge changes. That is why Matthews needs to refine his skills and Robinson needs to develop those skills. That's the best I can do to explain why your wrong about it just being semantics. Develop is not a synonym for refine.
As for your final statement about Watkins, that's where we actually disagree about the substance of this debate. I won't try and change your opinion here because knowing you, it was reached after many hours of studying tape on him. I still disagree with your assessment though.
Now if Watkins were Megatron, I'd take Megatron over Donald.
Would be a moot point if Snead had done a better job of drafting WRs, there's no way we should be sitting here discussing the need for a WR having spent a top 10 pick, the first pick in the 2nd round, a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick on the position.