First- Regarding drafting the Potential WR in the first round. In general, I try do do as much research on the draft, and potential players as I can. I don't claim to know what i'm talking about, I just stand on the shoulders of giants and make claims that either make me look stupid, or brilliant . IE- thinking Jason Smith was a fantastic Pick at #2, and predicting the Roger Saffold pick.. I just read alot- which is more than i can say for some people

Continue reading this post »

Most of this is an escerp fro, a question i wan to ask Sando on his next chat- So its written as i was adressing him

 Recently Sando said this is an NFC West Blog:

"The Rams might be better off sticking a little more with their base offense featuring two backs and one tight end. 

I say "might" because the information in the chart -- and available in much greater detail via this Excel file -- doesn't account for situations. The fact that quarterback Sam Bradford has fared better statistically from base personnel makes sense because the Rams use this personnel when facing more favorable down and distances. They have never used it this season on third down, "

I took this as you saying that they think they would be better off going from thier base offensive (2 RB's 1 TE) but who know? Bajema is hurt, fells is questionable, Illinois Mike is out 4-6 weeks) so that leave activating Onobon?.. Oh and whats his face--darcy

Also a second point (which my make less sense because teems do what ever it takes to WIN... "winning isn't everything; it's the only thing" (widely attributed to American football coach Vince Lombardi, while It is attributed to UCLA Bruins football coach Henry Russell ("Red") Sanders, who spoke two different versions of the quote. In 1950, at a Cal Poly San Luis Obispo physical education workshop, Sanders told his group: "Men, I'll be honest. Winning isn't everything. (Long pause.) Men, it's the only thing!"[1] In 1955, in a Sports Illustrated article preceding the 1956 Rose Bowl, he was quoted as saying "Sure, winning isn't every thing, It's the only thing."[2]

But i pose a question- though Spags, and Devany have constantly reiterated that every move, decision the make, play they run are based on the that same principle. "winning is the only thing" 

But maybe (hopefully by design- or the decision maker are bad at playcalling), They are limiting the playcalling that Sam does well, or dare i say "mastered", because they want to give him the oppertunity to develope as fast as possible. IE- working on (in real game situations) things that he is average or below average on.

Basically Bradford's job this year is to study study study..... above winning games.

I'm In gradschool for counseling psychology.  If i have a huge test comming up.  When i'm putting in my hours studying, I don't study the concepts that i have already mastred or are close to mastered. atleast not a really significant amount of the time. I work on the things that I am struggling with.

Mirroring my last anecdote for Sam, when he is "studying" (not just for next weeks game , but his overall test- studying to have a great career and studying to eventually Become a superbowl winning QB (aka at practice, Studying video AND REAL GAME EXPERIENCE)... why wouldn't they have Sam work on the things he is not best at a fair to significant amount of time in the "REAL GAMES" ... when you get the full lessons.

Caviot- The Rams would have to balamnce it with what he does well to keep his confidence up, but Brad has said to be on all acounts (by many scouts etc) a guy who is calm, posied, doesn't get to high or low. and learns from each mistake

Certainly if thats what they were doing (which it would be the way i would handle it if i were coaching) i believe they should abandon that philosphy at certain points. In both of the recent 2 games abandoning my theory could have helped the offensense in certain times in both the games, and  try maybe get a win in one, or both.

Obviously, this is all a wash if Sando is baseing his point mainly (or completely) around Protecting Sam

 I like try to play GM- Read all I can etc- I'm not all that into it yet being that its early- but i want to see your opinion on where i'm at with my very basic start.

 2011 draft wants. 1st- WR- lots of prospect with early #1 potential (or Significantly BPA :normally a BPA guy)

2) i hear Corner position back is deep, and many of the prspects seem to have size (Saps likes) or BPA- but dier need to CB depth, and #1 CB - but i thin both Fletcher and Muphy (3rd rd.) have potential to be very good. maybe not a #1

3) DT, OLB, DE- trouble rushing passer. JL is a upcomming stud. Larry Grant could be solid. Diggs is old. Trouble rushing passer- and edge run defense.

4) RB/G- Dier need of Rams is a second option to SJ- I am a believer that a Solid RB can be found fairly late, and somes a big time steal, and maybe they pick one up in Free Agency.  G- Bell has under prefored. Rams inside line has been atrocious (aside from Jason Brown) (Name?) (C).

One last question (7th,6th,5,th)- What do you think you could get tradeing away thoughs picks- i think we may have 2 sevens though.. - any chance that would bring in an extra 4th or... dare a even ask 4? if its 2 7's and a 5- Could that get and extra 5 or maybe (crossing fingers) a 4?.   Would this even be a good move to get a more talent player- the three picks?

You're analysis of my breakdown would be appreciated

Thank You Very Much,

              Thurdgood E Jenkns- or Ev

I think it is a real possibility that the Rams will beat the Cards on sunday. 

1) This team seems hungry and motivated to prove themselves, and (hopefully) the home opener will make the Dome a hostile environment to a team, with a quarter back trying to show that he wasn't a one year wonder.

2) I really believe the jey is the Defensive line. Chris Long had a strong finish to last year, and i suspect he will start better than he did last season. I'm blanking on the name of the DT that has really look ATLEASED solid so far, recovering from being out all last year with an injury. And hopefully another person can make a few plays.

3) I like our corners- Bartell is said to be healthier than last year, and people expect him to lay more like he did 2 years ago. I happen to be a big fan of  Bradley Fletcher, and with (i believe, correct me if im wrong) Larry Fitz is out for sundays game. Or atleased will not be 100 percent.

4) Derek Anderson. I happen to believe he is a bad QB, as even if you look at his one good year- his play Significantly in the second half and had several recievers with that Lary Fitz like ability to attack the ball and make an innacurate pass turn into a great play

5)  OJ Otogwe is a ball hawk, and i'd like to see him step up and take advantage of Derek Anderson's accuracy issues.

6) James L in his second year.

PS- I happen to believe the whole defense will be solid this year, with learning the scheme completely after one year in it. I think the LB core is solid.

I'm not going to "Break down" the Offense- 

What do you think?

This may be way off base, but is there precedent for "converting" this TE who is a very good blocker, from what i understand, to RB? He did play FB in college, but i guess that means he couldn't run very well then.  If he is better at vlocking than any of our other Backup RBs are is it possible he could be our back up RB.  He can pass catch, block- and had FB skills. is it possible that they could be looking at him  from that perspective. Is there any precedent, or an i an Idiot? 

What kind of pro prospect is Wayne Chism (sp?) He seems like a pretty raw talents, with passion, somewhat of a shot, a good rebounder... but i am under no dellusions about my knowledge of what makes a college player a decent prospect. where could he be drafted and would he be an interesting choice for the Thunder? His passion impresses me, how hard he plays, and how tenacious he is with rebounds, he seems like he would bring a good personality to a team.

I posted a question about what Centers we could draft with one of our 1st and if we could put a trade together, and here is a follow up question.
If there isn't a senario where the Thunder combine there 2 first found picks and trade up for a better Center prospect, than who position and what type/style of player do we use the second one on... i believe it is Pheonix's pick.

I am a big sports fan, but admittedly basketball is probably the sport i know the third most about, ahead of hockey. I know the thunder have two firstt round picks, and i think most would agree that the should probably go Center with atlased one of them.. Who are some people they could be there for one of those picks, and would it be possible to trade up and get a more highly touted center. trade up into the 10-15ish range or better if possible, or down you use both. I would think with the youth already on this team it would make more sense to draft One better player, than two late first rounders who would need more developement or add youth depth, because The thunder already have enough youth. A few years ago. i decided that i wanted to become a real fan, not just a causual fan, and i didnt want to be a bandwagon fan, so i decided to choose a team, who wasnt already great, who possibly was somewhat close, and with a young player i believed in. I ended up wanting to decide between Portland or OKC, and i was on the Durant side of the fence before the draft. I really liked him hence i became a OKC fan, and i live in STL ... okc is about as close as any other NBA city..

Any body who can give me more intelligent idea of what could realistically happen in the draft, or any actual names would be appreciated, thanks