Results 1 to 14 of 14
Like Tree8Likes
  • 5 Post By Barry Waller
  • 1 Post By AvengerRam
  • 1 Post By Barry Waller
  • 1 Post By Rambos

Thread: Implications of Receiver Deals

  1. #1
    Barry Waller is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Alton, Il. USA
    Age
    63
    Posts
    908
    Rep Power
    25

    Implications of Receiver Deals

    First of all, both teams are overpaying for good, not great players, one who is 32. Their numbers just are not there the last three years, especially scoring TDs.

    Seattle did this with Burleson, S. Rice, Z. Miller and still haven't had a good receiver since Steve Largent. Yea, Seattle gets a great return guy too, but they already had one of the best in the NFL, Leon Washington, so no help there.

    The wide reveiver trades have an impact on the first round that could really affect the Rams.

    We'll find out how good and deep the WR crop on draft day is, if Cruz moves especially, and others get big money.

    Now that Minnesota and Baltomre will be desperate for WRs, preferably big, fast ones, we;ll see what they do now. Minny has cap space, the Ravens do not, at least for a top guy.

    If we get to draft day as is, I could see teams trying to get ahead of the Rams for the first or second WR at 16, ESPECIALLY Minny, who has extra picks now to use. Baltimore has been known to deal up for their guy in the past, and are a good team with few holes.

    If the Rams don't go WR at 16, you can bet Minny will be lokking to get to 21 from 23, and Baltimore would be competing for that as well.

    By the time it's said and done, the Rams could see Patterson, Allen, Austin, and Hopkins all gone by 22.

    I don't see the Rams going after a WR as a #1 other than Greg Jennings or Mike Wallace. Jennings even playing outdoors and in te cold and wind a lot, has a terrific TD/catch ratio.

    That's exactly what the Rams need, not some guy great between the 20s.

    If they don't get Jennings, or Wallace, then they are stuck with the draft. They would still probably have added a tall pas catching TE like Cook or Keller.

    That means they have to hope a guy falls to 16 that would not be a reach over, say a guard who also dropped, or figure on getting the fourth best WR at 22 or the sixth or seventh best at 48.

    Otherwise they have to deal up, and it;s just a shame there is no super stud WR they could deal up for this year.

    You are gonna have to overpay for a top WR in this market, or else try to win by building a top defense, and a good running game.

    The Rams, unlike the Niners and Seattle, are building for 2015 ad 2016. Those high paid guys on Seattle won't be there then, and the #1 draft pick to replace one will be gone.

    The Rams can't reach to make fans happy. All they can do is put the full court press on Jennings and Wallace, and then make sure and add other things in FA and on draft day rather than reach.

    I hope the Niners and Seattle go NUTS trying to win in 2013, because their fall will be big when cap hell hits. They will BOTH have to pay $20 million a year for their QBs very soon.

    Barry Waller

  2. #2
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,479
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    I hope the Niners and Seattle go NUTS trying to win in 2013, because their fall will be big when cap hell hits. They will BOTH have to pay $20 million a year for their QBs very soon.
    As the Bard once wrote... "Aye, there's the rub."
    laram0 likes this.

  3. #3
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,290
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Waller View Post
    By the time it's said and done, the Rams could see Patterson, Allen, Austin, and Hopkins all gone by 22.
    It's been eight years since we saw a draft when four wide receivers were taken before the 22nd pick. I'm not sure this class is strong enough at the position for it to happen, but anything's possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Waller View Post
    I don't see the Rams going after a WR as a #1 other than Greg Jennings or Mike Wallace. Jennings even playing outdoors and in te cold and wind a lot, has a terrific TD/catch ratio.
    Sounds good to me!

  4. #4
    shower beers's Avatar
    shower beers is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,043
    Rep Power
    59

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    It's been eight years since we saw a draft when four wide receivers were taken before the 22nd pick. I'm not sure this class is strong enough at the position for it to happen, but anything's possible.
    Yeah, this seems to be a particularly weak class. I feel like Patterson wouldn't be slotted where he is had he been in another draft class.

  5. #5
    FestusRam's Avatar
    FestusRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Festus, Missouri
    Posts
    1,169
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    Quote Originally Posted by shower beers View Post
    Yeah, this seems to be a particularly weak class. I feel like Patterson wouldn't be slotted where he is had he been in another draft class.
    I disagree. Its actually a pretty deep class without the clear cut Calvin Johnson type talent/measurables. However, I'd say that the Top 5 in this class is pretty strong. A case could be made for Patterson, Austin, Hopkins, and Allen to go in the first for solid value.

    I think Patterson goes in the first in any recent draft. Hes got rare ability for a player of his size and may be a swiss army knife type player on Sundays(returning, receiving, coming out of the backfield).
    Last edited by FestusRam; -03-11-2013 at 08:54 PM.

  6. #6
    NJ Ramsfan1 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    2,192
    Rep Power
    69

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    I must say I am filled with a mix of confusion, anxiety and a little bit of anger. WHAT IS OUR PLAN???

    Waller says in the article and I quote "You are gonna have to overpay for a quality WR in this market or try to win with a sound defense and a good running game". Well, it seems to me like the rams are NOT gonna' overpay for a receiver and they also ARE NOT gonna' have the running game we're all used to this season with the imminent departure of Steven Jackson. That's a concern. I ask again, "What are we doing?"

    This is now Sam Bradford's football team- as it should be. Think maybe getting him a big time target or keeping his security blanket in a Ram uniform might be in his and everyone else's best interests?? How many times have people defended Bradford on this board by saying "well, if he only had some weapons..." then those same people want to pinch pennies when it comes to getting those weapons!!! You can't have it both ways!!

    I'm not suggesting giving some ridiculous deal to an average talent. But I've said it three times in three different threads: Giving Amendola a deal comparable to Brian Hartline- that is, a 5 year 6.1 million dollar deal does not seem unreasonable, injury history and all, especially when you look at the other available receivers Waller listed on another thread and what they might command financially. This is a guy (Amendola) who led the NFL in total yards from scrimmage two years ago, no?

    Don't talk to me about the long term ramifications that Seattle, SF and company face- they just got significantly better by acquiring proven weapons for their football teams. Bury your head in the sand if you wish, but they've each helped themselves tremendously. This division has gone from laughingstock to very formidable in two short years.

    We've upgraded positional talent and gotten younger. We went from 2 wins to 7. Our moves last season in both the draft and free agency were largely successful. And ultimately, I trust in Fisher. But addresing this receiver issue is absolutely something this organization needs to address NOW and CORRECTLY- or Bradford will remain a guy saddled with sub-par targets.

  7. #7
    Barry Waller is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Alton, Il. USA
    Age
    63
    Posts
    908
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    Oh wow, does my "critic" here even understand the salary cap. Did Seattle get "significatly better" when they got Sidney Rice?

    For every $12 million guy you sign, you are gonn lose THREE $ million guys in the long run, or maybe your own guys you can't sign without cutting five starters.

    The Rams choose not to spend money on Jackson, because they feel they can improve elsewhere, and they have two young backs one picked early.

    A running game is not about the back anyway (see Denver, Kansas City a few years ago, New ENgland and Giants now)

    If Seattle ends up LOSING Chris Clemons, their leading sacker, or Rice, or Zach Miller, or Red Bryant, or Sherman, or some other good player by getting Harvin, don't you think that could all balance out?

    If the Rams decide to cut good players t one position, but use that cap to sign others at other positions, isn't it the same thing.

    And only a complete IDIOT would react negatively to what the Rams have not even had a cfhance to do.

    Had the Rams made this deal, giving up that #1 pick, plus, they would just have used up EVERY BIT of salary cap they have, and in the future, it would hamstring them badly.

    And the Rams don't have a QB that is gonna make $15 to $20 million more a year very soon.

    Seattle and Washington, and the Jets, Lions, and Dolphins have been pulling this act for DECADES , and it has never worked, and every year some idiot fans go after the Rams for NOT doing that same thing. They never mention that like the Rams in many cases, the Steelers, Ravens, Packers, Giants, Patriots, and Bears usually sit out the circus.

    They seem to do OK despite their people being so weak, scared, and cheap.

    EVERY GM knows, you WIN, and stay WINNING via the DRAFT, and the Rams guys had a great 2012 off-season, even witha late start and having to add a new staff etc. Their FA acquisitions were mostly good as well. Hayes, Dunbar, Finnegan, all did well, and Wells probably would have if not for the injuries.

    They even found a great kicker and punter for next to nothing.

    Free agnecy is mainly a show to sell tickets and get fans pumped and the fre agents seldom if ever live up to their pay and hype, or even get close.

    Just look at the past year's "big signings" and you will see I am 100% right here.

    I've heard guys like Bill Walsh and Bill Parcells and Bill Polian, and Jimmy Johnson, interviewed them myself, and they ALL say the same thing about the free agent thing. I am just repeating what I learned covering the ams and the NFL for 17 years, and being a rabid draftnik since 1970.

    You can listen, or not, but my thought are NOT just out of my butt.

    Had the Rams traded for Harvin and paid him $12 million a year for 5 years, fans would be *****ing that it was too many and too high of picks for a guy with very average receiving stats who scores very few TDs for a "big threat, explosive guy. They would cite his constant injuries, and his attitude that ran him out on Minnesota.

    He was rookie of the year, with a great QB throwing to him, one of the best ever, but he was nothing in the playoffs that year 6 catches for 38 yards. He was good with Favre again his second year, but not greta at all since. he won't add KR to Seattle either, unless they cut Leon Washington, who may be better KR anyway.

    Harvin was picked only 22nd overall for a reason. he is exactly what they sid he was out of college, a big underachiever with a big attitude and ego. And then there are the headaches. Bet he gets a lot in HUMID Seattle.

    In the NFL "trying and failing" is NOT better than doing nothing. With a salary cap, you pay big time for overreaches to make headlines.
    rNemesis likes this.
    Barry Waller

  8. #8
    NJ Ramsfan1 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    2,192
    Rep Power
    69

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    First off, it is obvious you didn't read my entire post. I am not a "critic" of yours, nor am I upset we didn't get Harvin or Boldin. My simple point is that you have to give up something to get something. And while I agree teams build through the draft, we've also have a position of need for YEARS (receiver) and a prized QB in dire need of weapons. Not giving this man something to work with is the equivalent of buying a sports car and filling it with diesel fuel. Aside from Givens- who is hardly a bonafide lock for superstardom, we don't have one guy on this roster who elicits excitement or gives us the productivity necessary for offensive success. And if it is to be believed, Amendola will leave also, which I feel is a terrible error-given I don't believe we'd have to "overreach" significantly to keep him. Once again, we're going to have to hope we can land a receiver in the draft (we've been SOOOOO successful the last 3-4 years in getting someone who could even remotely come close to holding Torry Holt's or Isaac bruce's jockstrap).

    95% of the posts I've read elsewhere from Seattle and SF fans are extremely positive towards the moves they've made. And I'm sure they're not all "idiots"- much as we Rams fans might like to think so. Their teams are better- and creative financing from their front office can minimize cap problems in a few years. Paul Allen didn't become a gazillionaire by being a stupid fool. And let's not assume Kaeperncik and Wilson are the next Bradshaw and Montana who will command mega-deals down the road on the basis of one good year.

    I don't necessarily agree with your assertion that the running game is not about the running back. You cite the Giants as an example. The Giants had a poor running game this year- and Eli Manning was hurt by it. I've consistently stated letting Steven Jackson go- painful as it may be- was the right move. It doesn't negate the fact we're now without a 1000 yard rusher and our only real good skill position player.

    The fact remains: we are a poor offensive football team. We need to get impact players in here. Most will come via draft, if of course, we draft intelligently. But yelling "SALARY CAP!" anytime the opportunity arises to land a real good player to bolster the offense will get real old real fast.

  9. #9
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,479
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    Fans are always happy on the day their team acquires a big name. That does not mean the moves will work out in the long run.

  10. #10
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,145
    Rep Power
    106

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    Quick and Givens to the rescue.

  11. #11
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,896
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    Part of the salary re-adjustment after moving money from rookies to veterans means mid-range WRs will earn more money than before, particularly with the move towards a more pass-happy league. Some of the contracts this winter may seem outrageous now, and in a few years may seem like the norm, or even a bargain. Unfortunately for the Rams that does mean at some point having to spend some big $$$ on a WR because that's just the market rate.

  12. #12
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,479
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    Quote Originally Posted by laram0 View Post
    Quick and Givens to the rescue.
    How funny would it be if, after all this talk, Brian Quick ended up being the leading receiver in the NFC West in 2013?

    After all, once upon a time there was a 2nd round draft pick of the Rams who went from 21 receptions, 272 yards and 3 TDs as a rookie to 119 receptions, 1,781 yards and 13 TDs as a second year player.

    Not saying it will happen again, but... you never know.

  13. #13
    Rambos's Avatar
    Rambos is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cali
    Age
    50
    Posts
    8,944
    Rep Power
    74

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Ramsfan1 View Post
    I must say I am filled with a mix of confusion, anxiety and a little bit of anger. WHAT IS OUR PLAN???

    Waller says in the article and I quote "You are gonna have to overpay for a quality WR in this market or try to win with a sound defense and a good running game". Well, it seems to me like the rams are NOT gonna' overpay for a receiver and they also ARE NOT gonna' have the running game we're all used to this season with the imminent departure of Steven Jackson. That's a concern. I ask again, "What are we doing?"

    This is now Sam Bradford's football team- as it should be. Think maybe getting him a big time target or keeping his security blanket in a Ram uniform might be in his and everyone else's best interests?? How many times have people defended Bradford on this board by saying "well, if he only had some weapons..." then those same people want to pinch pennies when it comes to getting those weapons!!! You can't have it both ways!!

    I'm not suggesting giving some ridiculous deal to an average talent. But I've said it three times in three different threads: Giving Amendola a deal comparable to Brian Hartline- that is, a 5 year 6.1 million dollar deal does not seem unreasonable, injury history and all, especially when you look at the other available receivers Waller listed on another thread and what they might command financially. This is a guy (Amendola) who led the NFL in total yards from scrimmage two years ago, no?

    Don't talk to me about the long term ramifications that Seattle, SF and company face- they just got significantly better by acquiring proven weapons for their football teams. Bury your head in the sand if you wish, but they've each helped themselves tremendously. This division has gone from laughingstock to very formidable in two short years.

    We've upgraded positional talent and gotten younger. We went from 2 wins to 7. Our moves last season in both the draft and free agency were largely successful. And ultimately, I trust in Fisher. But addresing this receiver issue is absolutely something this organization needs to address NOW and CORRECTLY- or Bradford will remain a guy saddled with sub-par targets.
    I know you know better but do you really think that Les and Fisher are going to go on the NFLN and lay out the plan? Of course NOT, but that does not mean we do not have one or the fans will like the plan.

    To say we will not have a running game due to the fact we are moving on for SJ is a bit premature. Free agency has yet to start and the draft is still a ways out and you are claiming we will not have a running game? Really, again a bit premature.

    I'm one of those guys that have said we need to get Bradford some weapons, that said you can't add weapons if we don't change the roster. Retaining the same players that we have not won with in the past will not produce weapons. SJ will test the market it looks like he's gone but lets see how it plays out. If someone wants to over pay for his services so be it, lets move on and add the playmakers that we have been asking for.

    I agree with your assessment of adding WR, we added two last year in the draft and will most likely add another one this year. Lets see what happens in free agency, maybe they land Jennings or add a elite TE like Cook. Lets at least watch this unfold before we hit the panic button.

    There is not doubt it a stressful time, and even harder when your team is strapped for cash, but six years of piss poor management is not wiped away in one year.
    C-Mob 71 likes this.

  14. #14
    NJ Ramsfan1 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    2,192
    Rep Power
    69

    Re: Implications of Receiver Deals

    Quote Originally Posted by Rambos View Post
    I know you know better but do you really think that Les and Fisher are going to go on the NFLN and lay out the plan? Of course NOT, but that does not mean we do not have one or the fans will like the plan.

    To say we will not have a running game due to the fact we are moving on for SJ is a bit premature. Free agency has yet to start and the draft is still a ways out and you are claiming we will not have a running game? Really, again a bit premature.

    I'm one of those guys that have said we need to get Bradford some weapons, that said you can't add weapons if we don't change the roster. Retaining the same players that we have not won with in the past will not produce weapons. SJ will test the market it looks like he's gone but lets see how it plays out. If someone wants to over pay for his services so be it, lets move on and add the playmakers that we have been asking for.

    I agree with your assessment of adding WR, we added two last year in the draft and will most likely add another one this year. Lets see what happens in free agency, maybe they land Jennings or add a elite TE like Cook. Lets at least watch this unfold before we hit the panic button.

    There is not doubt it a stressful time, and even harder when your team is strapped for cash, but six years of piss poor management is not wiped away in one year.

    Rambos- your points are well taken- I'm just irritated at what I feel is blind faith in certain current guys (Pead and Quick) who didn't show much at all last season. I don't know how anyone in their right mind can sing the praises of these guys on the limited body of work they each had. And then to possibly let Amendola walk is unconscionable, as far as I'm concerned. Unless the guy is making some ridiculous demands, every effort should be made to keep him.

    I have no choice but to trust Fisher and Snead, but I'm still a bit uneasy looking at our current offense.

Similar Threads

  1. Fantasy Advice/Implications
    By RuffRams in forum FANTASY
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: -10-11-2011, 04:28 AM
  2. Kitna traded to Dallas implications
    By itsguud in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: -03-01-2009, 02:26 PM
  3. Rams Working On Trio of Deals
    By evil disco man in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-27-2009, 09:53 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: -04-03-2008, 03:59 PM
  5. Kyle Turley cap implications
    By general counsel in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -10-26-2004, 06:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •