Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Rams4life1 Guest

    Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    back for the money they paid Bennett to be a backup. Fletcher only got 5 yr. 25 million from the skins. Thats about the same thing the Rams gave Bennett. I know he left on bad terms, but money talks. Thats why he left in the first place.They could have moved witherspoon back to outside and picked up a solid WR in the 2nd round.

    I liked this move, but can the Rams afford to pay a backup 4.5 million per?

  2. #2
    Varg6's Avatar
    Varg6 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,660
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rams4life1 View Post
    back for the money they paid Bennett to be a backup. Fletcher only got 5 yr. 25 million from the skins. Thats about the same thing the Rams gave Bennett. I know he left on bad terms, but money talks. Thats why he left in the first place.They could have moved witherspoon back to outside and picked up a solid WR in the 2nd round.

    I liked this move, but can the Rams afford to pay a backup 4.5 million per?
    Doesn't make sense, WW is permanently in the middle. They have no intention on switching him back to his original position. And its not that easy to just hand out money and say come on, play for us. Yes, I know there's a new coach and all, but I really doubt Fletcher would've wanted to be back. He wasn't really needed in the first place, and we don't have the kind of money to waste. There was a reason Bennett got such a good contract. He's going to replace Bruce in the next few years, and thats when we start drafting a WR.
    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

  3. #3
    RamOfDenmark Guest

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    Hmm sounds weird with Fletcher's contract, 25 mill $ for 5 years? That's not much, Fletcher should be able to command more than that, seems like a good deal for the Redskins. I wish we had him back at that price, he's got 2 or 3 good years left in him. I'm fairly surprised Fletcher didn't hit a bigger payday with all the money flying around this year, and even more surprised the Redskins didn't overpay like crazy as they usually do.

  4. #4
    Krames41 Guest

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    Witherspoon was never a strong side linebacker anyway, he was a weakside and played a little bit of middle. If we signed Fletcher (which was unlikely because he left as a free agent from our team already) we would have either two middle linebackers or two weak side linebackers, our need for a strong side still wouldn't be filled. But I totally agree about overpaying a thrid wide reciever. If he is going to be the replacement for Bruce we are making a long run downgrade, and signing a reciever who isn't going to be here that much longer then Bruce is...but then again I would hate to draft a reciever when we already have two future hall of famers. I think only time will tell on this one.

  5. #5
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    33
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    61

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    Quote Originally Posted by Krames41 View Post
    Witherspoon was never a strong side linebacker anyway, he was a weakside and played a little bit of middle. If we signed Fletcher (which was unlikely because he left as a free agent from our team already) we would have either two middle linebackers or two weak side linebackers, our need for a strong side still wouldn't be filled. But I totally agree about overpaying a thrid wide reciever. If he is going to be the replacement for Bruce we are making a long run downgrade, and signing a reciever who isn't going to be here that much longer then Bruce is...but then again I would hate to draft a reciever when we already have two future hall of famers. I think only time will tell on this one.
    Bennett is 28; Bruce is 34. Bennett is likely to be around quite a bit longer than Bruce. The way these contracts are usually written, his salary isn't going to be that high this year, and there's a pretty good chance he could be a starter by next year. This reduces the necessity of drafting a receiver in the near future, which lets us continue to try to fix the defense.

  6. #6
    blood85 Guest

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    That's all nice, but we still need defensive help.

  7. #7
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    28
    Posts
    5,263
    Rep Power
    62

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    we will get defensive help through the draft, and now we dont have to spend a pick on a WR

  8. #8
    Rams4life1 Guest

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    Quote Originally Posted by Varg6 View Post
    Doesn't make sense, WW is permanently in the middle. They have no intention on switching him back to his original position. And its not that easy to just hand out money and say come on, play for us. Yes, I know there's a new coach and all, but I really doubt Fletcher would've wanted to be back. He wasn't really needed in the first place, and we don't have the kind of money to waste. There was a reason Bennett got such a good contract. He's going to replace Bruce in the next few years, and thats when we start drafting a WR.
    Witherspoon may very well be staying in the middle, but it doesn't overide the fact that he is playing out of position. Fletcher would have allowed him to move back to RLB and made the Rams defense better. Thats all i want. A better defense. You do to, right?

    Again, i like Bennett. But the Rams should have used to money on defense. And if there was ever a year for the rams to need a receiver in the draft, it is this year. This is probably the best WR class since 1996.

  9. #9
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    41
    Posts
    14,178
    Rep Power
    150

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    Witherspoon may very well be staying in the middle, but it doesn't overide the fact that he is playing out of position.
    So if a natural MLB is brought in to move Spoon back to his natural WLB position, what do we do with Pisa, who is also a natural WLB?
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  10. #10
    theodus69 Guest

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    What are the chances we can get Amobi Okoye, I hear his stock went way up at the combines. I also hear he is a MONSTER!!!!!!

  11. #11
    im_a_king_co07 Guest

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    Why would you even want to move Will back to outside? He is just getting comfortable in the middle. I think that if you put some good linemen in front of Chillar, then i think he could be a pretty good linebacker. Think about this: Chillar is only 24 and he is always getting tied up in blockers because we didnt have any linemen that could keep blockers off of him so he could make plays. I say build up the defensive line and the rest will come together. Just my opinion though.

  12. #12
    keith m. klink Guest

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    the bennett contract has him making 9.5 million in the first year, and 13.5 in the first 2 years of the contract, and that is guaranteed, that is why he doesn't mind being the 3rd receiver, because after next year, will be his 3rd year hear, he will be replacing bruce, whos contract would be up, and then if still healthy, could resign to a short 3rd receiver contract until he retires, bennett in turn, would be in the 3rd year of his contract, with his guaranteed money still in hand, and not a huge cap on the second part of his contract. this will leave the rams able to either cut ties with him or keep him depending on their situation.

  13. #13
    txramsfan's Avatar
    txramsfan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Poplar Bluff, MO
    Age
    51
    Posts
    7,266
    Rep Power
    66

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    There isn't a bigger fan of Fletcher than me on this website, however it didn't make sense for the Rams to go after Fletcher. We already have a younger type of the same player in Spoon.

  14. #14
    81~BIG-GAME's Avatar
    81~BIG-GAME is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Belfast,Northern Ireland
    Age
    31
    Posts
    595
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    Fletcher has been a very good player,but at his age his production is bound to start diminishing.IMO the Rams need to be signing younger players not guys who are looking for their last contract,sorry for being cynical but i've seen the Rams sign to many.He may have provided a short-term upgrade but IMO isn't a long-term solution.Throw in the fact that Spoon seems set at MLB and I never expected us to make a run at him..:l

  15. #15
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    28
    Posts
    5,263
    Rep Power
    62

    Re: Rams could have had a starting LB in Fletcher...

    Fletcher had a contract agreed with the Redskins long before FA started according to most reports, so even if we wanted him we would have had to pay over the top for him. Which you dont do with a 31 year old linebacker

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •