Bronc24 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Rams dont think they need a QB but adding our #10 slot 3rd and fifth give them room to build team. Could we throw in a player Rams would want to free up the other picks? Why would the Rams ever go for that deal when there are teams willing to give three first rounders for that pick? I'd love to get him and say try and make the deal...but that's fantasy to think they are taking a deal similar to what you proposed.
bbb Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Where does everybody keep seeing the three first rounder thing? I saw that the Rams were looking for an Eli Manning deal, which was two firsts and a few other picks.
Numark Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Someone random from espn i think mentioned it may take 3 first rounders. So yea
Bronc24 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 From Rotoworld: The Cleveland Plain Dealer's Terry Pluto believes the price for the Browns to trade up to No. 2 overall is both 2012 first-round picks as well as the 2013 first-rounder. NFL Insider Charley Casserly agrees, suggesting a trio of first-rounders could clinch the deal. With rookie salaries deflated, multiple teams desperately in need of a franchise savior, and the top two quarterbacks set in stone, the Rams will simply take advantage of supply-and-demand while throwing Jimmy Johnson's point-value trade chart out the window. Pluto's suggestion lends more credence to the weekend report that the Redskins realize they will need to part with their top three 2012 picks and "at least" their 2013 first-round pick to land RGIII. Feb 28 - 3:03 PM
PDaDdy Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) The post did not mention anything about "going to go for Peyton". It stated the Rams want a "Manning-like deal", which refers to the haul San Diego received when they traded Eli to the Giants. And yes, shooting for .500 should be the goal of every franchise. I see back to addressing the least important points of a post. Manning like deal it is! Thanks for pointing out that gross and completely irrelevant oversight. Your contributions are invaluable. Why do you feel shooting for .500 should be our goal? I certainly didn't. I said our defense gives up 27.1 points a week which means our offense has to average around 28 pts just to be .500. To have a winning play off bound record our offense would probably need to average around 35 pts a week with our current defensive production. What sounds more reasonable and realistic to shoot for? A 35 pt a week offense or a defense that gives up 17 - 21 pts a week that doesn't put our offense in play from two scores down mode by the 3rd quarter? Edited February 29, 2012 by PDaDdy
bbb Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I see back to addressing the least important points of a post. Manning like deal it is! Thanks for pointing out that gross and completely irrelevant oversight. Your contributions are invaluable. Why do you feel shooting for .500 should be our goal? I certainly didn't. I said our defense gives up 27.1 points a week which means our offense has to average around 28 pts just to be .500. To have a winning play off bound record our offense would probably need to average around 35 pts a week with our current defensive production. What sounds more reasonable and realistic to shoot for? A 35 pt a week offense or a defense that gives up 17 - 21 pts a week that doesn't put our offense in play from two scores down mode by the 3rd quarter? I was going to let you know that the Rams were looking for an Eli type deal and it had nothing to do with Peyton, but he did it first.
PDaDdy Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) I was going to let you know that the Rams were looking for an Eli type deal and it had nothing to do with Peyton, but he did it first. Yep I read that wrong. There is all kind of speculation but for Cleveland to move up from #4 they are talking 2 1st round picks (THIS year) and a 5th. It would be a lot more for the Bills to move up especially considering the price would become even more inflated if another team enters the bidding war. Edited February 29, 2012 by PDaDdy
section122 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Fair enough, that may be what it takes to move up to 2 (although I don't understand your point about Mario Williams). And your right -- it is a QB and not a WR that one would have to move up to get. But if I was in charge of the Rams and I was offered something like what you described I wouldn't be able to say yes fast enough. Getting a proven player and that kind of draft haul would be a great step in straightening out the franchise. I understand being excited about RGIII, but he's one unproven player. There is no such thing as a can't miss prospect and high draft picks flame out all the time. If you take that kind of gamble and miss, your screwed for several years. Missing on a qb high in the draft isn't as bad as it used to be. The salary structure limits the financial burden of such a pick and that is what used to cripple franchises.
richNjoisy Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Missing on a qb high in the draft isn't as bad as it used to be. The salary structure limits the financial burden of such a pick and that is what used to cripple franchises. This is absolutely true now. However, the host of draft picks to move up is nothing to snort at. But again, at least the "missed" pick isn't as bad due to what you say - the cap hit for the missed pick doesn't last as long nor cut as deeply (see Ryan Leaf!). Oh, and "Janicks" - my Mario point had to do with how high in dollar amounts the bdding war wil be for Mario Williams. A bidding war may not develop for the 2nd pick of the draft for the very reasons you pointed out - RGIII is not a sure thing and a team will have to pay hugely in draft picks plus sign the young man for big (gish) money. MArio, on the other hand, is a proven commodity at a key position. No draft pick risk - you simply have to pay the man.....a lot. -RnJ
Webster Guy Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Newton was a top 10 QB right out of the box. It would behoove those teams, then, to not make a deal until they miss out on Flynn or Manning. And if they do, the Rams number 2 pick will bring even more value to the Rams. Agreed, but I'll bet they'll throw in a conditional pick as well based on performance (ie If he makes the pro bowl then Rams get another 3rd rounder in year 3 or something) Usually trade ups involve some sort of equalizer/conditional to make up for the unproven player factor. Or an injury rehab like Peytons. It was nice getting that extra conditional pick for Marshawn this year. Having two fourths and two fifths is not insignificant. It doubles our chances of getting a Kyle Williams or Terrence McGee type late pick in those middle rounds. Or possibly as strength to deal a trade up in the earlier rounds.
NickelCity Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I normally wouldn't agree trading the house for a player, but I agree on this one. This franchise needs RG3. Right now, we're like Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction, on the verge of death. Griffen III would provide the needed shot to the chest to revive us. Transcendent players like him make everyone look better. I'll echo this sentiment. I am never the one who wants to draft the QB, to trade up, etc. I usually am advocating for a trade down, and drafting the best down-lineman or backer on the board. Remarkably, I find myself hoping we trade up for RG3. I don't think this is even a realistic conversation, but I would be excited if we pulled it off. Even more excited if Indy drafted RG3 and we got Luck with the Rams pick. Oh well, pipe dreams are fun. I'll still be happy with a pass rusher, and I still think Fitz can get it done. I just won't be as elated, say.
Philly McButterpants Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 It's a no-win situation. We've interviewed him and 50% of the posts are why are we wasting our time. If it came out that we cancelled the interview, 50% of the posts would be how we've given up; Ralph is cheap, etc . . . Keep your options open. You never know when something lands in your lap.
Bronc24 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 I see back to addressing the least important points of a post. Manning like deal it is! Thanks for pointing out that gross and completely irrelevant oversight. Your contributions are invaluable. Why do you feel shooting for .500 should be our goal? I certainly didn't. I said our defense gives up 27.1 points a week which means our offense has to average around 28 pts just to be .500. To have a winning play off bound record our offense would probably need to average around 35 pts a week with our current defensive production. What sounds more reasonable and realistic to shoot for? A 35 pt a week offense or a defense that gives up 17 - 21 pts a week that doesn't put our offense in play from two scores down mode by the 3rd quarter? Your entire first paragraph of that post is irrelevant without the topic sentence. We know that the Rams are trying to deal the pick....hence the reference to the "Manning-like deal" they are looking to score. I agree with you about having a better defense. I've never stated otherwise. I also still maintain, as always, that I do not think Fitz can get us to the playoffs.
Captain Hindsight Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Per someone on twitter, and its completely rumor, the jets were mentioned as a team interested in Griffin. And frankly, that franchise has the balls to give up 3 #1's to go get him. Thats what i was thinking
Rico Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 There is a chance that could get it done but my guess is that the Rams will be interested in quality over quantity and the offers for RG3 are going to be substantial. The two firsts are good. That's a given. Extra second and third rounders are ok but they are far less valuable in trade than a first rounder obviously. Those aren't great chips. If I am the Rams I am holding out for a young pro bowl type cornerstone player. Williams is of little value. Coming off injury his value is probably 3rd round to a team that even wants to go to the trouble of checking him out medically, which could be very subjective and involved. I don't see him being a viable chip, IMO. Spiller is dynamic, but runnin bax ain't as valuable as they used to be. To me, he is a second round value in trade, if he even fits your system. Dareus is a stud player. He'd go top 5 in this draft, probably 3rd overall again. Aaron Williams is a player with promise at the corner position. If I am the Rams I take the two #1's and Dareus and Williams. If I could get away with swapping Spiller out for Dareus......in a heartbeat. CJ is a gamebreaking talent but bax are cheap and plentiful. Then, if I am the Bills I still have some early picks in the next couple seasons to replenish and spread out the roster base. Yeah, I think 2 #1's and Dareus would be a good start to getting a deal done. Anyone else would just be more a less a throw-in.
C.Biscuit97 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Yeah, I think 2 #1's and Dareus would be a good start to getting a deal done. Anyone else would just be more a less a throw-in. So, we are going to give our second best defensive player away and a 1st next year? I guess the hope is that RG3 will be able to led us to 40 points/ game because our bad defense will become god awful. Btw, the Rams would do that deal in a second. Talk about setting up their futuee.
Rico Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) So, we are going to give our second best defensive player away and a 1st next year? I guess the hope is that RG3 will be able to led us to 40 points/ game because our bad defense will become god awful. Btw, the Rams would do that deal in a second. Talk about setting up their futuee. No I don't think I would trade Dareus away either, but I do think that is what it would take if I were the Rams. If you are insinuating that Kyle Williams is the best defensive player and not Dareus, I wouldn't think twice of giving away Kyle & 2 #1s, but I dount the Rams would be interested. Edited February 29, 2012 by Rico
C.Biscuit97 Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 No I don't think I would trade Dareus away either, but I do think that is what it would take if I were the Rams. If you are insinuating that Kyle Williams is the best defensive player and not Dareus, I wouldn't think twice of giving away Kyle & 2 #1s, but I dount the Rams would be interested. Yeah, that would be extremely hard for the Rams to turn down. Personally, I think they should feel out the market for Bradford (though he is almost untradeable because of his stupid rookie Contract). I would much rather have RG3 as my franchise QB than Sam.
Captain Hindsight Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Where does everybody keep seeing the three first rounder thing? I saw that the Rams were looking for an Eli Manning deal, which was two firsts and a few other picks. To move up 3 spots... not 8 with 3 other teams trying to get the same pick. Its going to be a high price
Recommended Posts