Rams Failed in 2026 Draft Approach

[jrry32]

The WR thing is as much about where we've been.. as where we are now and for the next 6-10 weeks with Adams out. Not addressing that position appropriately was a terrible decision, imo.

And we do not know, for example, what adding Boston could do to improve the RZ opportunities. One PAINFUL memory last year.. Mumpfield's size being a detriment and allowing a defender to make a play in a Seattle game in the end zone. Better.. bigger player.. who knows. We also don't know how a legit 3rd option impacts defenses and coverages.. but I'm betting it helps.

I'm also, 100% of the belief that not having a 3rd WR they could turn to lead to too many snaps for a 33 year old WR who gets injured a bunch. It was just an obvious failure point.

Denzel Boston was the 39th pick in the Draft. He almost certainly would not have been the WR we drafted. The Rams reportedly were very high on De'Zhaun Stribling. So odds are we would have traded down and taken Stribling. Stribling has barely played this year due to injuries.

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/rams/2026/07/21/report-rams-had-interest-in-drafting-dezhaun-stribling-before-49ers/90994514007/

 

[Pupped]

Trade for 32 year old Buckner when you've got Kobie Turner, Poona Ford, Branden Fiske? It's possible. If they outbid the 49ers.

But he's not even in Myles Garrett's talent class. The Rams wanted and needed a closer on the DLine. That's Garrett. Not Buckner.

Again.. you'd have Verse.
I was talking about a possible addition to the interior.

This provides me an opportunity to use the .. "but see all the other moves they made!!!" argument..

The defense is better this year already because of the additions in the defensive backfield. If Verse was playing right now, they'd be even better. Maybe not as good as they could be.. but the improved back-end would help create more sack opportunities.. and Verse's pressure would create more turnover opportunities.. as it did last year.

 

[Pupped]

I'm glad you said taking a shot. Because there's no guarantee that any rookie even pans out. And the Rams or any team would be foolish to take such a shot vs. nabbing a higher rated talent on their draft board.

CJ Daniels could possibly be contributing as a gunner, but he isn't.
Could a good part of that be because there are other guys on the depth chart ahead of him that has prevented him from being active on gameday?

Just out of curiosity. If the Rams had drafted the way you wanted them to draft and those players didn't pan out would their approach still be wrong?

I've said.. multiple times on this thread.. there's no guarantee the other picks would do better.

I'm saying the path they chose eliminated even the possibility of that happening.. and I think that mindset.. and resulting draft.. were wrong for this year.

And to answer the last part.. no, it wouldn't still be wrong. Because if they attacked the obvious failure points on the roster for this season.. it would've made sense.. for this season.

Kinda like I felt in 21.. if they hadn't won it all, would I have said they were wrong to spend all the capital on Von Miller, for example? Absolutely not. Because you don't get a lot of those chances.

 

[Pupped]

Fixed the last line for you. You're talking about failure over the next 6-10 weeks before we even see how the offense performs without Adams. This is obviously bad analysis.

I'm skeptical that a 3rd WR has much to do with Adams getting injured. McVay and Stafford have shown a bad tendency to over-rely on their star receivers. I'm certain we'd be playing Adams and Puka about the same number of snaps even if they did draft someone in the 2nd round.

Remember, our last 2nd round WRs didn't play much. Van Jefferson got 19 snaps and only two targets per game in his rookie season. Kupp and Woods were the two primary WRs who ate. Atwell didn't get any snaps or targets on offense in his rookie season before being placed on IR in November. McVay and Stafford have always primarily utilized two receivers.

On Boston...several people in this thread, including me, have stated that it would be nice to have Boston. He was drafted at 39. What would have been your specific plan to get him?

So.. yeah.. nothing else is possible but the lane you see.

You can be skeptical all you want.. but read anything on exercise science and it's pretty easy to connect a to b on Adams injury.
You want to argue over-usage and injury in an oft-injured 33 year old aren't connected? Godspeed, sir.

I've already addressed a quality player's impact on snaps and opportunities, I'm over it.

Boston would've been picked in the first in this scenario. I deferred to people who pay more attention than me to the draft who say it would've been an appropriate spot.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Again.. you'd have Verse.
I was talking about a possible addition to the interior.

This provides me an opportunity to use the .. "but see all the other moves they made!!!" argument..

The defense is better this year already because of the additions in the defensive backfield. If Verse was playing right now, they'd be even better. Maybe not as good as they could be.. but the improved back-end would help create more sack opportunities.. and Verse's pressure would create more turnover opportunities.. as it did last year.

And they still wouldn't have the game closer they desired and needed. BTW, could be the new team or teams getting more used to his one trick or both, but 2026 Verse hasn't looked nearly as good so far with a pretty decent secondary behind him. But I'm still rooting for him.

 

[Pupped]

Multiple shots help a lot more in a deeper draft class.
And again, that player still has to pass for background, character, medical, talent, intelligence evalations. etc....

I forgot where I read it, but some were said to barely have 100 - 125 players on their draft boards.

And someone like Nick Scott could easier make the team and be active on a lesser roster.

I'll give you a recent example of roster misconstruction..
Bachman, Daniels and Whittington account for 21 snaps on offense last week. Whittington is an absolutely pedestrian special teams player and offers nothing but blocking on offense. Bachman is a well below average returner and does nothing in the passing game.... Daniels offers nothing on Special Teams. None of the three are positionally big, explosive athletes who might make a difference on Special teams. Add to them Ronnie Rivers.. essentially four wasted active roster spots.

There's a reddit on some data Sando put out about how derelict the Rams are with Special Teams when it comes to roster commitment.. here was the AI summary someone posted about it

The Rams dedicate fewer roster resources to special teams than virtually anyone else, leave more game-day players underutilized, and compensate by involving offensive and defensive starters more heavily. Their special teams performance is also at the bottom of the league.

 

[Pupped]

Denzel Boston was the 39th pick in the Draft. He almost certainly would not have been the WR we drafted. The Rams reportedly were very high on De'Zhaun Stribling. So odds are we would have traded down and taken Stribling. Stribling has barely played this year due to injuries.

https://theramswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/rams/2026/07/21/report-rams-had-interest-in-drafting-dezhaun-stribling-before-49ers/90994514007/

We don't know.

And we don't know if he would've been hurt with the Rams. Not sure if you've noticed.. there's something weird about the 9ers and injuries that people discuss a bunch.

 

[Pupped]

And they still wouldn't have the game closer they desired and needed. BTW, could be the new team or teams getting more used to his one trick or both, but 2026 Verse hasn't looked nearly as good so far with a pretty decent secondary behind him. But I'm still rooting for him.

Your going with the "what they were trying to accomplish".. and your using Garrett as your example.

Others insist that if they hadn't drafted Simpson, the wouldn't have gone after Garrett.

So.. how much do they actually value Garrett? Play it out.

Because they either didn't care about that "closer" enough to make the move on it's own... or they would've made the move whether or not they drafted Simpson.

 

[Memphis Ram]

I've said.. multiple times on this thread.. there's no guarantee the other picks would do better.

I'm saying the path they chose eliminated even the possibility of that happening.. and I think that mindset.. and resulting draft.. were wrong for this year.

And to answer the last part.. no, it wouldn't still be wrong. Because if they attacked the obvious failure points on the roster for this season.. it would've made sense.. for this season.

Kinda like I felt in 21.. if they hadn't won it all, would I have said they were wrong to spend all the capital on Von Miller, for example? Absolutely not. Because you don't get a lot of those chances.

But what about the first part of my question. What if they had to take lower rated players on their draft board to meet your requirements for the right approach? Would they have been wrong?

 

[Memphis Ram]

Your going with the "what they were trying to accomplish".. and your using Garrett as your example.

Others insist that if they hadn't drafted Simpson, the wouldn't have gone after Garrett.

So.. how much do they actually value Garrett? Play it out.

Because they either didn't care about that "closer" enough to make the move on it's own... or they would've made the move whether or not they drafted Simpson.

Snead and Rams reporters have discussed the importance of the Simpson selection in freeing up selections to make a big move.

But to play it out:
Or they had enough sense to realize the importance of the QB position over any other position. And once that was possibly taken care of they could make a move for Garrett.

 

[Pupped]

But what about the first part of my question. What if they had to take lower rated players on their draft board to meet your requirements for the right approach? Would they have been wrong?

Do you know what their draft board is?

I don't. So.. what's the premise?

 

[Pupped]

Or they had enough sense to realize the importance of the QB position over any other position. And once that was possibly taken care of they could make a move for Garrett.

Again.. that is a different argument.

And my argument comes down to this roster, this year.. is quite obviously the time to push the chips in for a Super Bowl.

And.. you're using that to deflect from answering the question about the absolute value of Garrett. You made an argument that the Rams had to have him because he's a closer. But they wouldn't have gone after the closer if they didn't get the QB of the future? So.. they would've felt fine with Verse in that scenario.. and so would I.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Do you know what their draft board is?

I don't. So.. what's the premise?

No. But I'm asking do you think they should have forgone their draft board which I'm sure they used to make their selections.

 

[Pupped]

No. But I'm asking do you think they should have forgone their draft board which I'm sure they used to make their selections.

It's beyond hypothetical.
Not interested in playing that game.

And.. in regards to draft boards.. do you know how they put theirs together? Is it straight numbers for players? Clusters of players? Do subsequent players' value change if you've drafted someone ahead of them at the same position?

Wayyyy too many data points to play guessing game.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Again.. that is a different argument.

And my argument comes down to this roster, this year.. is quite obviously the time to push the chips in for a Super Bowl.

And.. you're using that to deflect from answering the question about the absolute value of Garrett. You made an argument that the Rams had to have him because he's a closer. But they wouldn't have gone after the closer if they didn't get the QB of the future? So.. they would've felt fine with Verse in that scenario.. and so would I.

I don't think I deflected regarding the absolute value of Garrett. He's behind a potential franchise QB.

Had to have him are your words.

I made the argument that they really desired him because they wanted a closer which Verse is not.

Would they have gone after Garrett if they didn't get the QB of the future? Sure. But, going after him and having and using the necessary capital to get him are two different things altogether.

 

[Memphis Ram]

It's beyond hypothetical.
Not interested in playing that game.

And.. in regards to draft boards.. do you know how they put theirs together? Is it straight numbers for players? Clusters of players? Do subsequent players' value change if you've drafted someone ahead of them at the same position?

Wayyyy too many data points to play guessing game.

It shouldn't matter.

But take the Rams out of the equation. In general do you believe any team should draft a lesser rated player on their draft board in order to fill a perceived need?

 

[Pupped]

I don't think I deflected regarding the absolute value of Garrett. He's behind a potential franchise QB.

Had to have him are your words.

I made the argument that they really desired him because they wanted a closer which Verse is not.

Would they have gone after Garrett if they didn't get the QB of the future? Sure. But, going after him and having and using the necessary capital to get him are two different things altogether.

I think their defense would've been every bit as good this season.. *to this point* without the Garrett trade.
They would not have had Donald.. but they would have had Verse playing.. and playing from Game one, healthy.

And they would've had the draft capital to make upgrades if they so chose to.

 

[Pupped]

It shouldn't matter.

But take the Rams out of the equation. Do you believe any team should draft a lesser rated player on their draft board in order to fill a perceived need?

Again.. I reject the premise.

Because I don't believe that any team operates in a "always draft the highest rated player on your board" manner.

Teams factor in "need" all the time.

The thing is there's a difference between "reaching" for a need.. and overdrafting someone. "Reaching" would be imagining someone is better in a role that you have for them than they really are.
Overdrafting would be taking someone higher than others would expect.. but it's a player who fills an exact role for you.

 

[Memphis Ram]

I think their defense would've been every bit as good this season.. *to this point* without the Garrett trade.
They would not have had Donald.. but they would have had Verse playing.. and playing from Game one, healthy.

And they would've had the draft capital to make upgrades if they so chose to.

I believe that they'll be better when Garrett and Donald finally see the field and more importantly stronger for potential playoffs run.

And having the draft capital and completing a deal for a top talent are still two different things altogether.

Team needs don't influence player availability.

 

[jrry32]

We don't know.

And we don't know if he would've been hurt with the Rams. Not sure if you've noticed.. there's something weird about the 9ers and injuries that people discuss a bunch.

Not sure if you've noticed but we've gotten pounded by injuries this year too.