Nick Fairley Visiting the Rams (now signed)

[volsunghawk]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... with-rams/

Ian Rapoport of NFL Media reports that Fairley is now headed for a visit with the Rams. If Fairley does end up joining the Rams defensive line, it will be a case of the rich getting richer.

The Rams have recent first-round picks Aaron Donald and Michael Brockers at defensive tackle at the moment, so adding Fairley doesn’t really fall into the necessity column but adding him to the rotation would make for a constant stream of fresh and talented players in the middle of the defensive line.

 

[Largent80]

Ageed....NO!!!!!!!!

 

[Marvin49]

...because what they REALLY need is more D-Linemen.

 

[HawkFan72]

...because what they REALLY need is more D-Linemen.

I'm sure you guys said that when Seattle had an abundance of D-linemen in 2013 too.

 

[mistaowen]

That defensive line would be insane.

 

[volsunghawk]

...because what they REALLY need is more D-Linemen.

There are worse strategies in the NFL than being really dominant at one thing.

 

[Popeyejones]

...because what they REALLY need is more D-Linemen.

I'm sure you guys said that when Seattle had an abundance of D-linemen in 2013 too.

Except the Rams already have four D-Lineman who are arguably as good or better than the Hawks best lineman in 2013.

Agreed with Vols that being dominate in one area can be a really good strategy, I just think the Rams are ALREADY really dominate in that area.

Not to be too on the nose about it, but as the fans of other NFC West teams, heck, I think we should be ROOTING for the Rams to give a big deal to Fairley. That's money that they're not spending at OLB, Safety, WR, OG, etc.

If you want to increase you d-line rotational depth and d-line is already far and away the strength of your team, it's one of the best drafts in recent memory to do so. Using high ticket FA signings for anything except for hole-filling absolute needs just isn't the way to go about it, IMO.

Put another way, another really good d-lineman for the Rams is a luxury purchase. I just think making luxury purchases when some of your other cupboards are bare doesn't make any sense. I mean, they're competing on price with other teams that actually NEED a DT. :lol:

 

[DavidSeven]

Every year, it's the same story with these guys. Last year, they added Donald to an already stellar line ...and then lost more games than the year before. Let me know when they figure out their offense.

 

[volsunghawk]

Every year, it's the same story with these guys. Last year, they added Donald to an already stellar line ...and then lost more games than the year before. Let me know when they figure out their offense.

Well, they finally got rid of Bradford, so that's a step in the right direction.

 

[onanygivensunday]

You can't blame Bradford for their poor offense that last several years... except that he's fragile and breaks often.

Foles is likely a slight improvement from Shaun Hill... or maybe not.

I should add... to stay on topic... that Fairley doesn't scare me.

 

[Popeyejones]

I'll drag it back off topic. :lol:

Foles shouldn't scare anyone. He's been a middling QB who can't hold down the starting job in two of the most QB friendly offenses in the history of the NFL (Reid's and Kelly's) .

And on top of that he can't stay healthy.

Purely from a talent perspective I think he's the third best QB on the Rams roster (behind both Hill and Davis).

If he's able to not get benched before getting injured, I'll be surprised.

 

[Hawks46]

...because what they REALLY need is more D-Linemen.

I'm sure you guys said that when Seattle had an abundance of D-linemen in 2013 too.

No, he's right. Go ahead and add Fairley. He'll be in a rotation, thus minimizing both his and Brockers or Donald's impact as you're diluting their snaps.

Apples to oranges a bit comparing that to our 2013 DL. We had a deep DL, but we weren't stacking starters behind starters. That's just dumb and they have other holes to fill elswhere.

Sure the DL would be sick. And their offense would be sick as well, as in pathetically sick.

 

[Marvin49]

Honestly, I wasn't being critical. Not saying it would be a bad signing.

...more just sayin' "jeez...because they needed more guys up front". Crazy good D-Line.

 

[Rex]

...because what they REALLY need is more D-Linemen.

I'm sure you guys said that when Seattle had an abundance of D-linemen in 2013 too.

No, he's right. Go ahead and add Fairley. He'll be in a rotation, thus minimizing both his and Brockers or Donald's impact as you're diluting their snaps.

Apples to oranges a bit comparing that to our 2013 DL. We had a deep DL, but we weren't stacking starters behind starters. That's just dumb and they have other holes to fill elswhere.

Sure the DL would be sick. And their offense would be sick as well, as in pathetically sick.

Rotation of quality players doesn't minimize their impact as a unit. Playing fresher bodies in the 4th quarter can yield big dividends. :th2thumbs:

 

[volsunghawk]

...because what they REALLY need is more D-Linemen.

I'm sure you guys said that when Seattle had an abundance of D-linemen in 2013 too.

No, he's right. Go ahead and add Fairley. He'll be in a rotation, thus minimizing both his and Brockers or Donald's impact as you're diluting their snaps.

Apples to oranges a bit comparing that to our 2013 DL. We had a deep DL, but we weren't stacking starters behind starters. That's just dumb and they have other holes to fill elswhere.

Sure the DL would be sick. And their offense would be sick as well, as in pathetically sick.

Rotation of quality players doesn't minimize their impact as a unit. Playing fresher bodies in the 4th quarter can yield big dividends. :th2thumbs:

Yeah, that was my thinking. They'd not only be fresh in the 4th quarter, they'd be fresh in December.

 

[purpleneer]

...because what they REALLY need is more D-Linemen.

I'm sure you guys said that when Seattle had an abundance of D-linemen in 2013 too.

Except the Rams already have four D-Lineman who are arguably as good or better than the Hawks best lineman in 2013.

Agreed with Vols that being dominate in one area can be a really good strategy, I just think the Rams are ALREADY really dominate in that area.

Not to be too on the nose about it, but as the fans of other NFC West teams, heck, I think we should be ROOTING for the Rams to give a big deal to Fairley. That's money that they're not spending at OLB, Safety, WR, OG, etc.

If you want to increase you d-line rotational depth and d-line is already far and away the strength of your team, it's one of the best drafts in recent memory to do so. Using high ticket FA signings for anything except for hole-filling absolute needs just isn't the way to go about it, IMO.

Put another way, another really good d-lineman for the Rams is a luxury purchase. I just think making luxury purchases when some of your other cupboards are bare doesn't make any sense. I mean, they're competing on price with other teams that actually NEED a DT. :lol:

You mean "dominant."
I am kinda with you. For them he is a luxury as well as a risk, though a reasonable price tag with protection for the team could pay off. Anything more substantial diverts resources from other areas that need more attention, and they do have other issues. Fairley has a chance to be a great pickup for anybody, but is far from a sure thing. Oakland may decide his upside is worth more risk considering how much they have to spend and how few players want to take theirs.

 

[dcbshowstopper]

...because what they REALLY need is more D-Linemen.

I'm sure you guys said that when Seattle had an abundance of D-linemen in 2013 too.

Except the Rams already have four D-Lineman who are arguably as good or better than the Hawks best lineman in 2013.

Agreed with Vols that being dominate in one area can be a really good strategy, I just think the Rams are ALREADY really dominate in that area.

Not to be too on the nose about it, but as the fans of other NFC West teams, heck, I think we should be ROOTING for the Rams to give a big deal to Fairley. That's money that they're not spending at OLB, Safety, WR, OG, etc.

If you want to increase you d-line rotational depth and d-line is already far and away the strength of your team, it's one of the best drafts in recent memory to do so. Using high ticket FA signings for anything except for hole-filling absolute needs just isn't the way to go about it, IMO.

Put another way, another really good d-lineman for the Rams is a luxury purchase. I just think making luxury purchases when some of your other cupboards are bare doesn't make any sense. I mean, they're competing on price with other teams that actually NEED a DT. :lol:

St. Louis just signed OLB Akeem Ayers, so that's one area of need that has been taken care of. They are also expected to lock up Britt, and sign either a center/guard. If they sign Fairley, it will be to replace Kendall Langford who was schedule to make over $7 million this year. I doubt Fairley's salary would be near that as Langford was only cut because $7 million is a lot to pay a rotational DT.

 

[Sherman4Prez]

You can't blame Bradford for their poor offense that last several years... except that he's fragile and breaks often.

Foles is likely a slight improvement from Shaun Hill... or maybe not.

I should add... to stay on topic... that Fairley doesn't scare me.

Blaming Bradford is what we do here.

Fairly subbing for Brockers on 3rd and 8 is scary enough. That fact that Wilson was harrassed and constantly under fire against these guys makes it worse. The fact we lost Carpenter AND Unger with no good replacements on the radar could turn it into a blood bath with their improved offense.

You act like they can't beat us when they did with a third string QB.

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

Have they hit .500 yet?

 

[Rex]

Have they hit .500 yet?

Rams will be 10-6 this season. :mrgreen: