Have the Rams zeroed in on Sam Bradford?

by Dan Kadar on Mar 8, 2010 1:52 PM EST in 2010 NFL Draft

The Rams today officially signed defensive tackle Fred Robbins for three years and up to $12 million. The team's defensive line rotation now includes Robbins, Clifton Ryan, Darell Scott and impending draft bust Adam Carriker.

Carriker, a first-round pick in 2007, has done little to excite. Ryan is a solid rotation player but not an anchor tackle. Scott is a fourth-round pick from last year who was starting by the end of the season. Robbins played really well for head coach Steve Spabnuolo in New York, but is 33 and underperformed in 2009.

Still, each is a solid player. Given that, should the Rams use the No. 1 overall pick on a defensive tackle? Or is the signing of Robbins an indication that the Rams have zeroed in on a quarterback, namely Sam Bradford of Oklahoma.

VanRam of Turf Show Times writes that it's no guarantee that the tackle are off the board with the No. 1 pick. Personally, I still stand by the belief that St. Louis should take Bradford and let Spagnuolo develop a later-round tackle prospect.

But we want to hear from you on the why or why not based on today's signing.

Poll

Should the Rams still take a defensive tackle or a quarterback?

Defensive tackle

89 votes

Quarterback

285 votes

374 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

It would be hard to pass up Suh.

The only cure for a bad today is tomorrow.

by norcaliangelsfan on Mar 8, 2010 1:55 PM EST reply actions

But they do need a QB

2009 NY Phin PhansFantasy League Champion
2009 Best Regular Season Record in NYPPL.
2010 The Jim Mandich NewsFlash Award Winner.

by Patssuck456 on Mar 8, 2010 1:59 PM EST up reply actions

The Rams

either made this move to hedge towards a QB or they plan on making the DT position their greatest asset if they were to decide on Suh.

by AmpLee on Mar 8, 2010 3:01 PM EST reply actions

Teams w/the luxury of being able to take more risk

could take Bradford, but the Rams don’t have that luxury. Bradford will probably pass his physical and do very good at his Pro Day, but the question still remains: How is that shoulder going to hold up to NFL hits? If the question mark is there the Rams shouldn’t take him.

I like the idea of growing the D and adressing more pressing needs if the talent is there. Such as TE. A pass catching TE could improve the O enough. There were many times last season when either Fells or McMichaels dropped passes that would have been 1st downs. I guess that’s why both those players aren’t on the team right now.

by RamsFan1979 on Mar 8, 2010 3:10 PM EST up reply actions

is a TE really going to fix that offense?

They averaged less than 11 points per game last year. That’s horrific.

How can you even tell the state of the D when tho O can’t keep them off the field?

by microwave donut on Mar 8, 2010 3:22 PM EST up reply actions

There were many injuries on O as well

so it’s really hard to evaluate some of the talent. I believe we have a good core of young WR’s. When healthy they will improve the team.
The TE position is important, yes. Who would you rather have, T. Gonzalez, T. Heap, A. Gates or Shockey? A big target in the red zone is nice, a TE that can exploit mismatches is a dream for O’s, and ones that can get 1st downs on drives are important, yes. This is especially important for teams, even the Rams. Remember when Gates scored 13 TD’s [I believe] in like ’04 or ’03? That level of talent also allows opportunities for other players; the QB needs to find the mismatch and strike.

Yeah, IMO, TE is important.

by RamsFan1979 on Mar 8, 2010 6:04 PM EST up reply actions

My line of thinking is this:

The team is really bad. So bad that I’m pretty confident that they will have a top 5 pick next year too (like Detroit last year to this year). They can draft a QB next year. If they think Suh is the top defensive prospect in a long while, than they should take him. They can get their QB next year. I just hope it’s not Jake Locker.

by LantermanC on Mar 8, 2010 3:45 PM EST reply actions

There is no guarantee

that they will be able to draft a QB next year. Suh could give the rams 5 wins which would be horrible for them because they arent bad enough to draft a QB but still bad. They MUST MUST MUST take a QB there is no other option. They can draft a DT in the 2nd round if they want to but they cant draft any franchise QB’s in the 2nd round so QB truimphs DT so Bradford is the pick.

by David7 on Mar 8, 2010 5:01 PM EST reply actions

Team should get Suh.

They have the 1st pick in the second round and can grab a QB such as Colt Mccoy. Or then can get a QB in the later rounds and develop him such as Jarrett Brown or Jevan Snead

eff you we winning anyway
A.I. IS BACKKKKKKK

by eagleswin on Mar 8, 2010 6:10 PM EST reply actions

The bust rate for later round QB's is like 75%

If you are the Rams, you ask yourself only one question. Can you win with Bradford (or Clausen) as your QB? If the answer is yes, you take him.

Jake Delhomme, QB Carolina Panthers, 2003-2009.

120 TDs+16000+ passing yards=Good

89 INT's+27 lost fumbles=Bad

Most comeback wins since 2003=Priceless

by Flowing Willow on Mar 9, 2010 7:12 AM EST up reply actions

If thats the only question you ask yourself....

You deserve to get fired. The landscape is changing drastically these days and the teams needs can be addressed in different ways seemingly every day. I want Suh, and everyone knows it, but what I want deep down is whats best for my team. I think right now that I don’t trust a guy who’s been injured to the point Bradford has been injured. I know we need a QB, but I want tough guys at every position. We’ve been hurt by injuries lately more then a lack of production at QB, as hard to believe as that sounds, it’s true. Suh’s not risk free, neither is G. McCoy, but Bradford comes with obvious warning signs. It’s gonna take quite an endorsement from quite a team of doctors to convince me. I won’t buy into Clausen so, damn, where do we go……. Suh.

by dbcouver on Mar 9, 2010 5:45 PM EST up reply actions