It would be the greatest Dline in the history of the NFL.I'll preface this by saying I don't like Ndamukong Suh, and I know the Rams won't sign him.
But could you imagine the total devastation he and Donald would cause on this line?
No joke.
It would be the greatest Dline in the history of the NFL.I'll preface this by saying I don't like Ndamukong Suh, and I know the Rams won't sign him.
But could you imagine the total devastation he and Donald would cause on this line?
Rotational DT.What would you do with Brockers though?
Ugh. Not a fan of that plan.Rotational DT.
I know, it's not a plan. It would/could never happen, but Suh/Donald with Brockers filling in so one of those guys could get a rest?Ugh. Not a fan of that plan.
MAYBE if we didn't have Donald and didn't have to put someone good into a non-starting rotational role. But we definitely have positions in more dire need of upgrade and only so much cap money.
Suh might just be my least favorite player in the league, but I'd sport a wood that couldn't be chopped for days if we could get him, AD, and Quinn on the same team.I'll preface this by saying I don't like Ndamukong Suh, and I know the Rams won't sign him.
But could you imagine the total devastation he and Donald would cause on this line?
I laughed my ass off seeing Lett on the sideline after Lawrence fumbled that ball.One sack? Ok. Did they win? Nope. freak suh...freak the Lions. ..freak the entire.city of Detroit. freak suh.
I still think people would end up disappointed when having both Donald and Suh in at the same time doesn't end up with both getting the stats they would individually since someone's got to be the guy who ties up blockers and doesn't get the stats that Brockers is now.I know, it's not a plan. It would/could never happen, but Suh/Donald with Brockers filling in so one of those guys could get a rest?
Puhlease.
We'd either have Suh play NT or just switch back to left and right DT. When you have a chance at having two players that dominant on the same team you find a way to make it work.We've switched to 3-tech, nose-tackle DT lineup from left and right DT. Donald is playing exclusively 3-tech and dominating there. Suh plays 3-tech. Do you want him to play nose?
View attachment 4900
We'd either have Suh play NT or just switch back to left and right DT. When you have a chance at having two players that dominant on the same team you find a way to make it work.
I've seen a play where we had Ogletree and Mark Barron playing DE and Quinn and Long standing up blitzing from the inside. Call me crazy, but I think Williams might just be creative enough to make it work.I love the enthusiasm but having Suh play nose tackle would be wasting a lot of his talent. If he's willing to do it, great, but it's a waste (Haynesworth very publicly helped sink - sink further - a franchise by refusing to play nose). If we go back to left and right tackle, it could work somewhat, but again, you won't be putting either in the best position to use their talents as often as you could. I just don't see how the benefits out-weight any cost in bringing him on.
TBH, I initially didn't like anything about our situation in that draft. Wasn't really a Bradford "fan", and didn't buy into all the slop that Suh was a "once in a generation" type player. I found myself rooting in silence for the Rams to take the Browns' offer of their entire draft for the rights to the #1 pick and the monumental salary that went with it, but that never happened. Woulda been happy with JPP and someone like Jason Campbell or Matt Moore while we built up the rest of the team. But once the realization set in that we were gonna take Bradford, I got behind the decision 100% and never looked back. Shame that whole 2011 CBA thing happened. I think Bradford would have benefited from a full offseason of McDaniels' offense, but more importantly ... the receivers would have.
This was precisely my argument for wanting Suh.My reason for preferring Suh at the time: A DT doesn't necessarily require quality around him to succeed. I worried we didn't have the supporting cast to help a #1 overall QB succeed. (And that still very well may be the story of Sam's career unfortunately).
So yeah, all things being equal, you'd take the QB. If you were looking for likelihood to produce though, you'd go with Suh.
I still wonder how much worse it would have been if Saffold hadn't fallen to the Rams, and we had Barron "protecting" Sam in his rookie year...This was precisely my argument for wanting Suh.
The Rams offense was old and deteriorating back then.
Sadly, I was right. Shurmur devised ultra-safe plays that got the ball out quickly and minimized potential for mistakes on Bradford's part. Heck, it got Bradford OROY.
I remember fans being so upset with the "dink-and-dunk" plays, but - given the talent surrounding Bradford - it was probably the only route they could go. That seemed to be proven when McDaniels came on board and put in long developing plays that exposed a very bad Oline and poor/young receivers. Bradford got hurt and had a pretty bad year.
To this day, some fans blame Surmur for "ruining" Bradford with the dink-and-dunk. Not sure whether to laugh or cry when I see Schottenheimer doing similar things.
I liked the idea of drafting a "franchise QB", but worried that he wouldn't be able to realize his full potential with what we had on the offensive side of the ball.
5 years later and we're still citing missing pieces on offense as potential reasons why Bradford hasn't live up to his potential.
I think it'd be naive to think this wasn't a large consideration in the pick.Rams had to go with Bradford over Suh, For reasons beyond football X's and O's. Excitement.
A franchise QB can reinvigorate a fan base. Taking a DT can't do that.