2024 NFL Draft- First Round Pick

[BStanRamFan]

Next season, we will have our first round pick for the first time since 2017. Quarterback's headline this draft and it's being touted as one of the deepest in recent memory. Stafford is playing very well, but at 36 with a laundry list of injuries, is it best to double-down and get him O-line help or finally take a QB?

 

 

[LeotheLion]

I'd go BPA or trade up for a QB. Stafford has impressed me this year. So I don't think going QB is a must. OL and Edge is the most obvious wants but if someone like Keon Coleman/Brock Bowers slips into our range that would be extremely enticing. 

[NVRamsFan]

Honestly depends on what's there. I'd like a LT if not I'd like an Edge or maybe a CB or even a TE or WR. All depends on what's out there but yeah I'd really like a LT. 

[MDY10]

This thread just doesn’t feel right. I don’t even remember what a first round pick is lol

[NYRamsFan88]

It depends on how we finish the year. 
 

If Stafford falls apart then a QB should be considered.

If our pass rush still sucks then it should be an edge. Not just to help out Donald, but to anchor the defense for the next 10 years when AD retires.

I may be in the minority, but I like what the secondary is doing. They haven’t allowed many TDs so far, however, the penalties and the tackling need to be cleaned up ( the ladder could be aimed at the entire defense ) 

 

 

[stl4life07]

Wouldnt it be funny if the Rams traded their 1st round pick before or on the trade deadline? Like you shouldve done this AFTER the trade deadline. But assuming the Rams dont make any big trades this season Im thinking BPA. 

I like the Rams starting OL with Jackson, Avila, Sheton, Dotson, and Havenstein. Continue to give those guys experience together starting and they will continue to get better. Plus the Rams OL unit in terms of talent has never been elite across the board. Yes Whitworth when he played is a HOG'er and Havenstein is underrated. Avila has a chance to be great too. I think as a unit the Rams OL can be top 10. 

The Rams dont need to draft a QB in the 1st round. Why? Stafford still is elite. He is throwing the ball as good as if not better than any of the QBs right now. Health will always be an issue but we know Stafford is tough as nails and McVay will always make it a top priority to keep him as healthy as possible. Plus we drafted Bennett for a reason. Assuming his off the field issues end up being good he will develop as the future starter for the Rams.

I would say EDGE but there will be plenty of great EDGE guys in FA. Burns, Young, Hunter, Sweat etc... I can see the Rams with all of their cap space in the offseason going hard after one of them to pair with Byron Young who is looking like a stud for the Rams and will only get better.

So that just leads me to the Rams taking the BPA. If it happens to be on the OL they need to go that route. If it ends up being another EDGE or a QB or a DB they go that route. If its a trade back you go that route. If its a trade up you go that route. I dont want the Rams to tie themselves down to just one position. 

[Dr LBC]

7 hours ago, NYRamsFan88 said:

It depends on how we finish the year. 
 

If Stafford falls apart then a QB should be considered.

If our pass rush still sucks then it should be an edge. Not just to help out Donald, but to anchor the defense for the next 10 years when AD retires.

I may be in the minority, but I like what the secondary is doing. They haven’t allowed many TDs so far, however, the penalties and the tackling need to be cleaned up ( the ladder could be aimed at the entire defense ) 

 

 

Considering how Eric Bienemy has gone to Washington to "prove himself" as being able to swim (versus sink) without Andy Reid... and been pretty meh, I anticipate Raheem being the new flavor-du-jour minority HC candidate that the NFL's media arm will push.  That doesn't necessary mean any organization is going to bite, but it also doesn't mean one won't either.  And while I've liked some of the concepts we've seen from Raheem, it leaves the middle of the field and second-level open to gash us (hence why TE's have been doing so well against us this season), and historically that's the area that the Niners and Hawks blister us.  But if we stay with a primarily zone-concept scheme a blue chip CB isn't as much a priority unless they legitimately have a lockdown ceiling (and those lockdown ceiling types that slip to the middle of the round in the order tend to be the toolsy guys in need of polish and are normally a year or more away - think the Byron Jones, Xavien Howard types.

I still fully subscribe to the build the trenches before the luxuries philosophy.  If you have the trenches, you can attract the ancillary guys via trade or free agency because historically the teams with perennially strong trenches are always competitive, so those player want to come to you and will leverage situations to get to you.

Are we going to get a shot at Fashanu or Alt without a trade-up?  Not bloody likely. Taliese Fuaga is quickly growing on me, even if I'm not sure he has one set position in the pros yet, but he fits the new approach we've implemented on the line this season.  That said, if he tests well, he's a lock for the Top 20 picks and probably higher, unless a good amount of GM's deem him a RT-only prospect.

[BStanRamFan]

I have to be in the minority here about taking a QB in the 1st.

I assume we end up as a WC card team and land in that 18-22 range. With that we should be in the JJ McCarthy/Michael Penix Jr territory. Have them sit behind Stafford in 2024 and take over in 2025 with 4 years remaining on their (assuming we pick up the 5th year). 

Love Stafford and think he's playing great, but every time he goes down I get nervous. Best competitive advantage in football is a QB on a rookie deal. This would bring us back to the 2017-2019 Rams with Goff where I team was super talented across the board. Our margin for error is so thin with the current team, I just hate having this approach. 

[LeotheLion]

37 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

I have to be in the minority here about taking a QB in the 1st.

I assume we end up as a WC card team and land in that 18-22 range. With that we should be in the JJ McCarthy/Michael Penix Jr territory. Have them sit behind Stafford in 2024 and take over in 2025 with 4 years remaining on their (assuming we pick up the 5th year). 

Love Stafford and think he's playing great, but every time he goes down I get nervous. Best competitive advantage in football is a QB on a rookie deal. This would bring us back to the 2017-2019 Rams with Goff where I team was super talented across the board. Our margin for error is so thin with the current team, I just hate having this approach. 

I like taking a QB, it just has to be a stud QB. Waiting for QBs to fall never made sense to me. If we like a guy, I'd always be in favor of moving up.

But I think at this point, the stud young guy on a rookie deal also applies to other positions. We are going to have cheap Puka for 3 more years. If you nail the draft with cost controlled picks, that is a big deal regardless of position. Obviously it matters more if you are saving $40-50m on QB deals but the majority of teams that pick QBs in the first round are more likely to pick a bust than someone that actually gives them a competitive advantage. 

[BStanRamFan]

32 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

I like taking a QB, it just has to be a stud QB. Waiting for QBs to fall never made sense to me. If we like a guy, I'd always be in favor of moving up.

But I think at this point, the stud young guy on a rookie deal also applies to other positions. We are going to have cheap Puka for 3 more years. If you nail the draft with cost controlled picks, that is a big deal regardless of position. Obviously it matters more if you are saving $40-50m on QB deals but the majority of teams that pick QBs in the first round are more likely to pick a bust than someone that actually gives them a competitive advantage. 

I agree, but the QB on a rookie deal is the biggest competitive advantage in football. 4 of the last 5 SB's had a QB on a rookie deal. 

Those 2017-2020 teams were STACKED with talent and Goff out performed his contract. It allows you to have a Ramsey/Kupp/Floyd/ Marcus Peters/Brandin Cooks etc you get it. But if Stafford goes down, this team is bottom 5. If a rookie QB goes down, this team can still be somewhat competitive give the elevated talent level around a veteran backup until the QB comes back.

[LeotheLion]

21 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

I agree, but the QB on a rookie deal is the biggest competitive advantage in football. 4 of the last 5 SB's had a QB on a rookie deal. 

Those 2017-2020 teams were STACKED with talent and Goff out performed his contract. It allows you to have a Ramsey/Kupp/Floyd/ Marcus Peters/Brandin Cooks etc you get it. But if Stafford goes down, this team is bottom 5. If a rookie QB goes down, this team can still be somewhat competitive give the elevated talent level around a veteran backup until the QB comes back.

I'd push back on this. The last 5 SB winners only had 1 QB on his rookie deal and that was Mahomes. What is the biggest competitive advantage is getting a franchise QB regardless of the price. The last 5 SB winners all had franchise QBs, 4 of which were not cheap. So to me, it is less about picking any QB and making sure we are getting the right guy. Staying in the late teens and getting the guy that falls is setting us up to Mac Jonesed/Kenny Picketted. 

[Dr LBC]

23 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

I agree, but the QB on a rookie deal is the biggest competitive advantage in football. 4 of the last 5 SB's had a QB on a rookie deal. 

Those 2017-2020 teams were STACKED with talent and Goff out performed his contract. It allows you to have a Ramsey/Kupp/Floyd/ Marcus Peters/Brandin Cooks etc you get it. But if Stafford goes down, this team is bottom 5. If a rookie QB goes down, this team can still be somewhat competitive give the elevated talent level around a veteran backup until the QB comes back.

Biggest, yes, but it really isn't as wide a margin of difference as it may seem at a distant glance from rookie EDGE or rookie LT - as both of those positions are approaching the top paid QB $ numbers at a faster rate because there are more of them getting paid on the regular with similar scarcity.  And, I'll be honest, I don't get the feeling from McVay that he's all that keen on working with rookie signal-callers; there's a reason why the guys who have had the most success in that McVay/Shanahan system have either been veteran QB's already in the league and blooded or mid-to-late round guys who are the "savvy-if-limited-physically" guys who can be propped up by surrounding weapons and the line in front of them; Tua has, by and large, been the outlier - and even with him and Burrow, neither of them have shown they can maintain the same level of production when the OL goes to hell.

[BStanRamFan]

4 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

I'd push back on this. The last 5 SB winners only had 1 QB on his rookie deal and that was Mahomes. What is the biggest competitive advantage is getting a franchise QB regardless of the price. The last 5 SB winners all had franchise QBs, 4 of which were not cheap. So to me, it is less about picking any QB and making sure we are getting the right guy. Staying in the late teens and getting the guy that falls is setting us up to Mac Jonesed/Kenny Picketted. 

Winners, sure. But it's not a coincidence 40% of the teams in the Superbowl the last 5 years were QB's on rookie deals.

Where a QB lands has just a big a part of his success as the talent level in some situations. Probably why Caleb Williams is being vocal about being selective. If we get a QB in house, I'm confident we can make him look good. Baker parlayed last years stint into a starting gig. So don't agree with you about just throwing around the term franchise QB. It's a great sound bite, but there's more context to it. 

Lamar Jackson was #30, Aaron Rodgers was #24 Deshaun Watson #12 Mahomes #10

Also, doesn't mean we stay put at 18. If there's a guy we love, move until that 5-12 range. 

 

 

[LeotheLion]

22 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

Winners, sure. But it's not a coincidence 40% of the teams in the Superbowl the last 5 years were QB's on rookie deals.

Where a QB lands has just a big a part of his success as the talent level in some situations. Probably why Caleb Williams is being vocal about being selective. If we get a QB in house, I'm confident we can make him look good. Baker parlayed last years stint into a starting gig. So don't agree with you about just throwing around the term franchise QB. It's a great sound bite, but there's more context to it. 

Lamar Jackson was #30, Aaron Rodgers was #24 Deshaun Watson #12 Mahomes #10

Also, doesn't mean we stay put at 18. If there's a guy we love, move until that 5-12 range. 

 

 

I'd argue it is a coincidence. The key isn't the cost, it's the quality of the QB. The QBs that have represented the last 5 SBs are:

Brady, Mahomes, Goff, Garropolo, Stafford, Burrow, and Hurts. Aside from Goff and Garropolo (and Garropolo wasn't even cheap), all of those other guys are top 5-7 QBs at the time of the SB. I don't believe that Mahomes is done appearing in SBs just because of his price. Same for Burrow, Hurts, Allen, Herbert, etc. 

Looking at the NFL's top 10 power rankings, 7 of the top 10 teams have QBs not on a rookie deal. And those 3 QBs are the #1 pick Lawrence, #6 pick Tua, and Purdy. Also of note, 7 of the bottom 12 teams have QBs on rookie deals. This is the other factor of the young QB that people never factor in, most young QBs suck. 

The argument basically comes down to is it easier to find a Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Hurts, Lawrence, etc or is it easier to assemble a roster like the Rams did with Goff or the 49ers have been able to do. I think it is easier to find that QB. But I understand the other argument too.

Edited October 18, 2023 by LeotheLion

[BStanRamFan]

16 hours ago, LeotheLion said:

 

The argument basically comes down to is it easier to find a Mahomes, Allen, Burrow, Hurts, Lawrence, etc or is it easier to assemble a roster like the Rams did with Goff or the 49ers have been able to do. I think it is easier to find that QB. But I understand the other argument too.

The entire Trey Lance situation should prove which one is easier.

49ers thought they found "the guy". Moved up, trade assets, draft Lance.

After 2 seasons they bailed and went with building around a late round over performer in Purdy. His story is rare, but when you get that level of production on a 7th round contract, you cannot pass up the window you have.

Mahomes/Allen/Burrow all are able to improve the level of play around them. It's rare.

Hurts I'd argue has the most talented roster in football. And we'll see what PHI does in 2024/2025/2026/2027 cause that's when his cap hit balloons. This year is still cheap ($24Mil)

Lawrence...tbd.

 

Edited October 19, 2023 by BStanRamFan