Fisher Says Washington Made Best Trade Offer

[r8rh8rmike]

Fisher says Washington made best trade offer

BY JIM THOMAS
Wednesday, March 28, 2012

PALM BEACH, Fla. • Mike Holmgren obviously thought otherwise, but Rams coach Jeff Fisher said his team took what it thought was the best trade offer for the No. 2 overall draft pick earlier this month.

So Cleveland’s offer wasn’t as good as Washington’s?

"Well, apparently in their eyes they thought it was," Fisher said at the NFL owners meetings. "But in our eyes we thought Washington’s offer was best for us."

Holmgren, Cleveland’s general manager, made headlines shortly after the trade when he told Browns season ticket-holders on a conference call that Cleveland’s offer was "every bit as good" as the one made by Washington. He also said that "close relationships" between Rams and Redskins officials are what got the deal done.

Fisher and Washington coach Mike Shanahan are very close, as are Rams executive vice president of football operations Kevin Demoff and Redskins general manager Bruce Allen.

"You know, I really didn’t pay much attention to the (Holmgren) comments, but we did what we thought was in the best interest of our organization from a trade value," Fisher said. "And that was just quite simple. They may have disagreed with their offer and its value vs. the offer we got from Washington and its value. But we never shopped back and forth. We met separately with both clubs."

Fisher said the Rams asked both clubs on more than one occasion to make their best offer. In the end, the Rams took Washington’s first-round pick in the 2012, 2013, and 2014 drafts plus Washington’s second-round pick in 2012.

Rams sources told the Post-Dispatch a couple of weeks ago that the Browns ended up offering three first-round picks to trade up from No. 4 to No. 2 _ including both first-round picks this season (Nos. 4 and 22 overall). But it’s not clear what else the Browns may or may not have offered.

According to Fisher, the Rams thought there was more value in getting the draft picks spread out over three seasons than getting the bulk of the Cleveland offer (two first-rounders) this year.

"Or we may not have taken that deal," Fisher said. "That’s precisely the issue. You know, an opportunity to actually maybe dictate a little bit in future drafts as opposed to having two picks this year. They give you a lot more flexibility. In addition to that, we also were really interested in the 39th pick (Washington’s second-round pick)."

[punahou]

IMO I would still prefer 2 1st rounds picks this year rather than do the long haul rebuild plan that spans 2012-14.

think of the player combinations based on this year's crop if we had 2 pick sin this years draft.

[laram0]

It's hard to say which trade was best because we don't know what the draftboard will look like next year.

[AvengerRam]

As fans, we'd love to see multiple first round picks right now. But, truth be told, its better to have two first rounders in the next two years, as we don't know what our primary needs will be in 2013 and 2014.

[RAMarkable]

[QUOTE=r8rh8rmike;422263]
According to Fisher, the Rams thought there was more value in getting the draft picks spread out over three seasons than getting the bulk of the Cleveland offer (two first-rounders) this year.

"Or we may not have taken that deal," Fisher said. "That’s precisely the issue. You know, an opportunity to actually maybe dictate a little bit in future drafts as opposed to having two picks this year. They give you a lot more flexibility. In addition to that, we also were really interested in the 39th pick (Washington’s second-round pick)."


And herein lies the problem; Fish is assuming that Washington will continue to suck so that their 2013 and 2014 picks will still be near the top ten.

But what happens if Griffin becomes the franchise QB that he is projected to and he leads the 'Skins to a winning record or even the playoffs? Suddenly that '14 pick ain't so good anymore.

I hope that Fishnead are right in this deal but it sure has a lot more risk than I would like. Risk that may not have been necessary if we could have squeezed Cleveland just a little more.

WHAT SAY YE?

[punahou]

It's hard to say which trade was best because we don't know what the draftboard will look like next year.

That is exactly the point; while we dont know what the next few years will hold, we do know what this year's does.

Moot point though- it's done. And I am glad to see the Rams doing something and anything creative in a draft, it's truly a breath of fresh air.

[Bald_81]

As fans, we'd love to see multiple first round picks right now. But, truth be told, its better to have two first rounders in the next two years, as we don't know what our primary needs will be in 2013 and 2014.

Bingo.

As many of us know the Browns #22 this year came from Atlanta who went to the wild card round of the playoffs before getting eliminated. This means that for the Rams to lose value in this trade, the Redskins would have to make the playoffs in both 2013 and 2014 to pick lower than they would have this year. Coupled with the fact that this is a generally weak class (that's the consensus) past the top six or eight, I believe it was smart to get two future picks instead of taking #22 this year. It may not be popular among fans who want to see the reward right now because they are impatient but this will pay huge dividends when the time comes. Just be patient.

[MauiRam]

[QUOTE=RAMarkable;422273][QUOTE=r8rh8rmike;422263]

And herein lies the problem; Fish is assuming that Washington will continue to suck so that their 2013 and 2014 picks will still be near the top ten.
But what happens if Griffin becomes the franchise QB that he is projected to and he leads the 'Skins to a winning record or even the playoffs? Suddenly that '14 pick ain't so good anymore.

Not necessarily. Sure it would be nice if we get a top ten pick next year (from the Skins), but we've got a whole year of college football for new young players to assert themselves. How deep will the draft be at each position next year, and the next (2014)? I am sure the Rams have gone over this scenario with a fine tooth comb. Not to mention the value or lack of it the Rams believed to be available in this year's draft.

The 2013 draft may be deeper in positions that are not so deep this year. If so, having an extra 1st rd pick would then be a real bonus. Also we could package it with our own pick and move up if there was an opportunity to take a real difference maker. Same analogy applies to the 2014 draft ..

I hope that Fishhead are right in this deal but it sure has a lot more risk than I would like. Risk that may not have been necessary if we could have squeezed Cleveland just a little more.

Les Snead stated very clearly that told each team he wanted their very best offer period, and that he wouldn't play them off against each other. He put the "squeeze" on up front and kept to his word.

[live4ramin]

We will have two first rounders in the next two drafts. That's some wiggle room to manuvre in.

[RockinRam]

There will be playmakers and blue-chip players in every draft in every year.

The No.22 pick from the Browns seems like the better trade at first glance, but if you re-evaluate it, the Redskin's future picks are the better investment.

[harrydog]

There will be playmakers and blue-chip players in every draft in every year.

The No.22 pick from the Browns seems like the better trade at first glance, but if you re-evaluate it, the Redskin's future picks are the better investment.

But word was the Browns offered 3 first rounders. This being a good year for DT's we could have been assured of Blackmon plus a quality DT this year and 2 first rounders next year. That probably would have produced results a little quicker.
All I'm sayin' is, both offers had merit.

[Rambos]

Interesting, I think the Skins will not be good and we will get a higher pick the 22 overall...
I also think we should spread it out.

[general counsel]

I continue to wonder if the rams had any inkling of the cap penalty that the commish was about to impose on the redskins and what impact that might have had on how they valued the future number one's for washington, especially next year. In my view, the redskins picks are more valuable to the Rams with the cap penalties in place since it certainly can't help the redskins win games. The degree to which it hurts remains to be seen.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

[NJ Ramsfan1]

Bingo.

As many of us know the Browns #22 this year came from Atlanta who went to the wild card round of the playoffs before getting eliminated. This means that for the Rams to lose value in this trade, the Redskins would have to make the playoffs in both 2013 and 2014 to pick lower than they would have this year. Coupled with the fact that this is a generally weak class (that's the consensus) past the top six or eight, I believe it was smart to get two future picks instead of taking #22 this year. It may not be popular among fans who want to see the reward right now because they are impatient but this will pay huge dividends when the time comes. Just be patient.

Patience ran out a long time ago. We were supposed to be patient when Linehan took over. Then we were asked to be patient when Spags was cleaning house. Now we're being asked yet again to "build for the future". The future is NOW. Winning can happen NOW. Others have done it. It won't be easy but it can be done. I'm not interested in 2016. I AM INTERESTED in 2012, and I'll make no apologies for it.

I would have rather had the #4 and the #22. Rams sources told the Post-Dispatch Cleveland would have given us another 1st rounder as well. And who knows if we could've gotten another random lower pick. What we've done instead is drop to #6 and possibly out of getting Blackmon- the guy I feel this team desperately needs.

[gap]

I would have rather had the #4 and the #22. Rams sources told the Post-Dispatch Cleveland would have given us another 1st rounder as well. And who knows if we could've gotten another random lower pick. What we've done instead is drop to #6 and possibly out of getting Blackmon- the guy I feel this team desperately needs.

It's a whole lot easier for Cleveland to say they offered 3 first rounders when no one will know without the trade being completed. While I would not do it, it could very well be that the RAMS are not raising the BS flag to show the rest of the league that are an honorable team to deal with. I highly suspect that if the Browns had really offered 3 firsts (early reports said that Cleveland was complaining that the RAMs were asking too much, and they were only offering 2 firsts), the RAMS would have taken it.


gap