4merper4mer Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 Regardless of what this means or doesn't about the Pats, the Rams are absolute morons. At 23 they could have just picked a receiver equal to or better than Cooks and had him cheap for 5 years. This is such a bad trade for them. 2
Yeezus Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 Beane should be fired on the spot if he let the Jets and then the Patriots move ahead of him to select a QB and we are stuck at 12 Would be a complete disaster of a draft. Idc how many picks we have, a middle LB is not going to win you a Superbowl. 1
Boatdrinks Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 9 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: Regardless of what this means or doesn't about the Pats, the Rams are absolute morons. At 23 they could have just picked a receiver equal to or better than Cooks and had him cheap for 5 years. This is such a bad trade for them. I disagree. Look at the performance of WRs drafted high in the last few years. Not much to write home about. 23 is good value for a proven NFL WR like Cooks. Watkins departure left a hole that McVay wanted filled. No WRs on Rams roster had that skill set. This move makes sense on a team loading up for a run. 11 minutes ago, Yeezus said: Beane should be fired on the spot if he let the Jets and then the Patriots move ahead of him to select a QB and we are stuck at 12 Would be a complete disaster of a draft. Idc how many picks we have, a middle LB is not going to win you a Superbowl. This will not happen. 49 minutes ago, Mij yllek said: From CBS Sports: Lamar Jackson, Louisville - As I wrote Tuesday, "it would be classic Bill Belichick to go against the grain and pick the super-elusive Jackson after he's won five Super Bowls with the stoic Brady under center." It's extraordinarily difficult to peg where Jackson will ultimately be selected, but it's reasonable to assume he'll be on the board at No. 23 overall. Of course.. " classic Belichick". So if the Bills select Lamar Jackson, it will be the cause of much hand wringing, face palming and calls for Beanes ouster. If the Pats select Jackson, it's pure genius. 1
4merper4mer Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 5 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: I disagree. Look at the performance of WRs drafted high in the last few years. Not much to write home about. 23 is good value for a proven NFL WR like Cooks. Watkins departure left a hole that McVay wanted filled. No WRs on Rams roster had that skill set. This move makes sense on a team loading up for a run. This will not happen. Of course.. " classic Belichick". So if the Bills select Lamar Jackson, it will be the cause of much hand wringing, face palming and calls for Beanes ouster. If the Pats select Jackson, it's pure genius. Agree on points 2 and 3 but pick 23 for the middling Cooks? No way. The Rams are the Redskins on steroids with these big $ signings and draft pick giveaways. The only thing I think the new regime has screwed up since getting here was opting against Watkins 5th year. It would have increased his value, and he would still be a Ram with the Pats unable to move Cooks. 1
Boatdrinks Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said: Agree on points 2 and 3 but pick 23 for the middling Cooks? No way. The Rams are the Redskins on steroids with these big $ signings and draft pick giveaways. The only thing I think the new regime has screwed up since getting here was opting against Watkins 5th year. It would have increased his value, and he would still be a Ram with the Pats unable to move Cooks. I think Cooks fills a need , cheaply. Beckham was out of reach and the draft doesn't look too good at WR. They are starting to mimic the Redskins and Les Snead is like a drunken sailor. I concur 100% on the Watkins option take.
Richard Noggin Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 22 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: The only thing I think the new regime has screwed up since getting here was opting against Watkins 5th year. It would have increased his value, and he would still be a Ram with the Pats unable to move Cooks. Was it the new regime who opted against Sammy's 5th year? Definitely wasn't Beane. He inherited Watkins on the final year of his rookie deal. (Unless I've been dead in a cave somewhere...which has been known to happen.) So, was it McDermott? I mean, officially, it was Doug Whaley. But, was it really coach's call? How do you know?
par73 Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 However all of this plays out, it makes one uncomfortable to see the Jets, and now the hated Patriots, moving up the board. Patriots may not have the ammo Buffalo has to get to #2, but they could try to move ahead of the 12 spot, if QB is the target.
4merper4mer Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 5 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said: Was it the new regime who opted against Sammy's 5th year? Definitely wasn't Beane. He inherited Watkins on the final year of his rookie deal. (Unless I've been dead in a cave somewhere...which has been known to happen.) So, was it McDermott? I mean, officially, it was Doug Whaley. But, was it really coach's call? How do you know? I don't know for sure but it did seem that McDermott was calling the shots. Why would Whaley trade all of what he did on Watkins and not extend unless he had another voice in the room?
ghostwriter Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 7 hours ago, HappyDays said: Les Snead is crazy. Every freaking week he's shedding draft picks and cap space. He needs to get on some lithium for sure.
Richard Noggin Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 7 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: I don't know for sure but it did seem that McDermott was calling the shots. Why would Whaley trade all of what he did on Watkins and not extend unless he had another voice in the room? Fair question. I imagine either of us could do ten seconds of research to shed a little light on the matter. Meh...
Paulus Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 7 hours ago, HappyDays said: I think it's a really terrible deal. They owe him $8.5 million this year, then he's going to want to get paid next year. And their first pick this year is #87 overall. In 2 years they'll have terrible depth and no cap space. I agree. The Pats basically got a free rental, or arguably gained some draft capital. Man, I do think Cooks will do great in LA.
Bing Bong Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, reddogblitz said: My suggestion to him would be to spend some quality time on TBD where he can learn that WRs aren't important if you have a "franchise QB". TBD has spoken. The quarterback makes the receiver. Larry Fitzgerald praises the heavens for all the great QBs that made him the stat monster he is. Without Josh mccown and Derek Anderson, drew stanton, Larry would have had a short career because he is a WR, a receptacle for quarterbacks, and that's all he'll ever be, and his passing offenses would have been naught. /HeavyS Edited April 4, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks 1
Alphadawg7 Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 3 hours ago, LittleJoeCartwright said: Since when has any team been reluctant to trade with the Pats? I didnt say they wouldnt trade with the Pats...I said no one is trying to help them post Brady...so if all things equal on a trade offer, we would have the advantage. But, we have more assets and better assets than the Pats anyway, so we can still outbid them IF Beane wants to.
Cmdjr85 Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 11 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: I didnt say they wouldnt trade with the Pats...I said no one is trying to help them post Brady...so if all things equal on a trade offer, we would have the advantage. But, we have more assets and better assets than the Pats anyway, so we can still outbid them IF Beane wants to. New England is likley not moving up in the draft. They traded cooks because they where not gonna be on the same page and offer him top WR money, so they got a pick that was better than they gave up. Theu didnt do this deal so they can try to jump to the top of the draft. And if the pats dp any trading it will probably be moving back.
Alphadawg7 Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Cmdjr85 said: New England is likley not moving up in the draft. They traded cooks because they where not gonna be on the same page and offer him top WR money, so they got a pick that was better than they gave up. Theu didnt do this deal so they can try to jump to the top of the draft. And if the pats dp any trading it will probably be moving back. Im not the one saying they are...
Cmdjr85 Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 Just now, Alphadawg7 said: Im not the one saying they are... Whoops replied on wrong person
Alphadawg7 Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 Just now, Cmdjr85 said: Whoops replied on wrong person All good...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 Patriots just leaked the Bills top choice at QB. Josh Rosen.
MJS Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 How the heck do they get a 1st for Cooks? Why do teams let Belechick do this to them? 2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said: Regardless of what this means or doesn't about the Pats, the Rams are absolute morons. At 23 they could have just picked a receiver equal to or better than Cooks and had him cheap for 5 years. This is such a bad trade for them. Agreed. BB consistently pulls the wool over the eyes of teams with trades. I don't know how he does it. I am always very surprised that teams take what BB offers them.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted April 4, 2018 Posted April 4, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, MJS said: How the heck do they get a 1st for Cooks? Why do teams let Belechick do this to them? The Rams think WR's are worth it. A 1st and a 2nd for Cooks and Watkins. The deep threat is very important in that offense to open up everything else. Edited April 4, 2018 by TheTruthHurts
Recommended Posts