Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    ludairv's Avatar
    ludairv is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    277
    Rep Power
    6

    Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Should the Rams be taking more risks?
    by VanRam on Oct 14, 2010 9:14 AM CDT in 2010 St. Louis Rams season




    I highly recommend that you read this fanpost from Everett 11. It echoes a point made in this piece over at SBN St. Louis taking the St. Louis Rams front office to task for being "wimps" when it comes to their decision not to swing a deal for WR Vincent Jackson...or any other highly valued wide receiver.

    Everett 11 breaks down the success, or lack thereof, of receivers drafted in the first round over the last decade. Though some household names and fantasy GMs recognize some of the players, the majority of them have become synonymous with disappointment. Risk. Like any draft pick, especially the ones that get big contracts, there is ample risk involved. Fans and pundits alike said the same thing about drafting Sam Bradford with the first overall pick.

    Risk versus reward, after the jump.



    The Chargers' asking price for Jackson is what reportedly torpedoed the deal for the Rams and the other teams involved. It's not entirely clear what that price was, but we do know it involved a second round pick in next year's draft. Whether or not A.J. Smith required another second round pick or a third round pick is unclear. Either way, it was deemed too much. The point both Everett 11 and Aaron Hooks are making is that the asking price really wasn't beyond reasonable given that Jackson is a 27-year old established player at one of the most difficult positions to draft and develop.

    Here's Hooks:

    I've been pretty clear on where I stand with Vincent Jackson. He's a proven NFL commodity, eager to prove his worth again, and the ideal prototype for today's NFL. His combination of size and speed makes him valuable. WR is one of the hardest positions to draft successfully in the NFL (ask Matt Millen) and if you're going to use a second round pick to get a receiver anyway, why not Jackson?

    Because he might cause some controversy? Because he might get suspended again?

    Right. It's a higher risk. And the Rams aren't comfortable taking any sort of risk with their team. So how exactly do you overcome the hole already dug and leap ahead of the teams entrenched in success?

    It's nothing that hasn't been discussed here before, but it's a much different context now with Mark Clayton out, the NFC West up for grabs and a Rams team still trying to rebuild a fan base that buys tickets.

    I wouldn't entirely agree that the front office is risk averse, drafting Bradford proves that. And, despite their insistence otherwise, I can't believe that ownership uncertainty and ownership of the first overall pick didn't limit the front office. But winning teams make money.

    Back when the Jackson trade talk was red hot, it wasn't as pressing for the Rams. They were doing well with the receivers they had on staff. The draft picks seemed particularly costly given the kinds of players the Rams have drafted in the second round over the last two years, not to mention the third round. It made the cost seem pretty steep at the time.

    Times are different now.

    I don't think this is an overreaction to an ugly loss against the Lions. The Rams are competing now, and even though they're not strong in every aspect of their roster, an addition like Jackson would dramatically change the offense, for the better.

    No, it wouldn't make them a Super Bowl contender this year, but it would make them a legitimate threat for the division crown. More importantly, it would make them a competitive team again, a winning team. Winning teams sell tickets. Tickets sales translate to more revenue, bigger TV ratings. It snowballs, solidifying the Rams' connection with their fanbase, upping the income and giving the front office some financial flexibility that they haven't had for a while.

    Giving up draft picks for a player just coming off a suspension is risky. Letting a team languish is just as risky.
    Last edited by ludairv; -10-14-2010 at 11:46 AM.


  2. #2
    ludairv's Avatar
    ludairv is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    277
    Rep Power
    6

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Quote Originally Posted by ludairv View Post
    Should the Rams be taking more risks?
    by VanRam on Oct 14, 2010 9:14 AM CDT in 2010 St. Louis Rams season




    I highly recommend that you read this fanpost from Everett 11. It echoes a point made in this piece over at SBN St. Louis taking the St. Louis Rams front office to task for being "wimps" when it comes to their decision not to swing a deal for WR Vincent Jackson...or any other highly valued wide receiver.

    Everett 11 breaks down the success, or lack thereof, of receivers drafted in the first round over the last decade. Though some household names and fantasy GMs recognize some of the players, the majority of them have become synonymous with disappointment. Risk. Like any draft pick, especially the ones that get big contracts, there is ample risk involved. Fans and pundits alike said the same thing about drafting Sam Bradford with the first overall pick.

    Risk versus reward, after the jump.



    The Chargers' asking price for Jackson is what reportedly torpedoed the deal for the Rams and the other teams involved. It's not entirely clear what that price was, but we do know it involved a second round pick in next year's draft. Whether or not A.J. Smith required another second round pick or a third round pick is unclear. Either way, it was deemed too much. The point both Everett 11 and Aaron Hooks are making is that the asking price really wasn't beyond reasonable given that Jackson is a 27-year old established player at one of the most difficult positions to draft and develop.

    Here's Hooks:

    I've been pretty clear on where I stand with Vincent Jackson. He's a proven NFL commodity, eager to prove his worth again, and the ideal prototype for today's NFL. His combination of size and speed makes him valuable. WR is one of the hardest positions to draft successfully in the NFL (ask Matt Millen) and if you're going to use a second round pick to get a receiver anyway, why not Jackson?

    Because he might cause some controversy? Because he might get suspended again?

    Right. It's a higher risk. And the Rams aren't comfortable taking any sort of risk with their team. So how exactly do you overcome the hole already dug and leap ahead of the teams entrenched in success?

    It's nothing that hasn't been discussed here before, but it's a much different context now with Mark Clayton out, the NFC West up for grabs and a Rams team still trying to rebuild a fan base that buys tickets.

    I wouldn't entirely agree that the front office is risk averse, drafting Bradford proves that. And, despite their insistence otherwise, I can't believe that ownership uncertainty and ownership of the first overall pick didn't limit the front office. But winning teams make money.

    Back when the Jackson trade talk was red hot, it wasn't as pressing for the Rams. They were doing well with the receivers they had on staff. The draft picks seemed particularly costly given the kinds of players the Rams have drafted in the second round over the last two years, not to mention the third round. It made the cost seem pretty steep at the time.

    Times are different now.

    I don't think this is an overreaction to an ugly loss against the Lions. The Rams are competing now, and even though they're not strong in every aspect of their roster, an addition like Jackson would dramatically change the offense, for the better.

    No, it wouldn't make them a Super Bowl contender this year, but it would make them a legitimate threat for the division crown. More importantly, it would make them a competitive team again, a winning team. Winning teams sell tickets. Tickets sales translate to more revenue, bigger TV ratings. It snowballs, solidifying the Rams' connection with their fanbase, upping the income and giving the front office some financial flexibility that they haven't had for a while.

    Giving up draft picks for a player just coming off a suspension is risky. Letting a team languish is just as risky.
    Everett11 Fanpost:
    After a few arguments (educated debates) I have decided to fire out another post concerning our WR issues. I guess the thing that burns me the most is all of the talk about not giving up a first or a second round pick to get a WR. I will also try my best to stay away from my own opinion and use statistics only. So here we go. Here is a list of wide receivers drafted in the first round since 2000.

    2009

    These WR's fall into the window of the learning curve but, Harvin had 60 receptions 690 yrds and 6 touchdowns, Maclin had 56 receptions for 773 and 6 touchdowns, Crabtree had 48 receptions 625 and 2 td's.

    2008

    No First round WR's

    2007

    1 Calvin Johnson Lions Georgia Tech (excellent)

    1 Tedd Ginn Jr Ohio State (Most likely a bust)

    1 Dwayne Bowe LSU (Satrted strong but since then Hasn't shown much at all)

    1 Robert Meachem Tennessee (+)

    1 Buster Davis LSU (Total bust)

    1 Anthony Gonzalez Ohio State (injured more than he is on the field)

    2006
    1 Santonio Holmes Steelers Ohio State (I think he'll be fine)

    2005
    1 Braylon Edwards Browns Michigan (rocky start)
    1 Troy Williamson Vikings South Carolina (terrible so far)
    1 Mike Williams Lions USC (Crappy)
    1 Matt Jones Jaguars Arkansas (bad receiver and legal problems)
    1 Mark Clayton Ravens Oklahoma (may have had a decent season with us, but a failure for a #1 pick)
    1 Roddy White Falcons Alabama-Birmingham (Doing pretty well now)

    2004
    1 Larry Fitzgerald Cardinals Pittsburgh ($)
    1 Roy Williams Lions Texas ($)
    1 Reggie Williams Jaguars Washington (=) (hasn't done anything)
    1 Lee Evans Bills Wisconsin ($)
    1 Michael Clayton Buccaneers Louisiana State (=) (good start but that's it)
    1 Michael Jenkins Falcons Ohio State (=) (headed towards bust if he doesn't pick it up)
    1 Rashaun Woods ***** Oklahoma State (-)

    2003
    1 Charles Rogers Lions Michigan State (-)
    1 Andre Johnson Texans Miami (FL) (+)
    1 Bryant Johnson Cardinals Penn State (-) (bust))

    2002
    1 Donte Stallworth Saints Tennessee (=)
    1 Ashley Lelie Broncos Hawaii (=)
    1 Javon Walker Packers Florida State ($)

    2001
    1 David Terrell Bears Michigan (-)
    1 Koren Robinson Seahawks North Carolina State (-) (bust due to how highly he was taken)
    1 Rod Gardner Redskins Clemson (-)
    1 Santana Moss Jets Miami (FL) (+)
    1 Freddie Mitchell Eagles UCLA (-)
    1 Reggie Wayne Colts Miami (FL) ($)

    2000
    1 Peter Warrick Bengals Florida State (-)
    1 Plaxico Burress Steelers Michigan State ($)
    1 Travis Taylor Ravens Florida (=) (Bust)
    1 Sylvester Morris Chiefs Jackson State (-)
    1 R. Jay Soward Jaguars USC (-)

    I think we can all see that there are far more busts than there are #1's on this list. Hell there are far more busts than there are serviceable wideouts on this list. So, I would like someone to tell me why it would be more intelligent to draft a WR and pay him top dollar over trading the pick for a young WR that has already proven himself to be a high caliber NFL wideout. Here is the only time I am going to use my opinion...Teams that are deep at the position and need help in other areas would love to have a 1st or 2nd round pick for their top WR. Guys like Fitzgerald, Miles Austin, Vincent Jackson, Marques Colston, Percy Harvin and due to the addition of Moss maybe even Sidney Rice could be expendable. Any player in the NFL is available and we have seen this in the NFL over and over again (yes Carneros trades even happen to a division rival see: Mcnabb). Look at the names over the last ten years, there are only 7 guys out of 38 that I would even want on the team.

    It seems simple to me. Take a huge chance in the draft or go for the sure thing at a similar price. Robinson and Gibson have shown they have absolutely no game. Robinson is in his 4th year and I have yet to see anything out of him and Gibson in his second year seems to just fill a roster spot and be happy with it. By the way (off subject) Gibson and Robinson have the same jersey number listed (11) on the "official" Stl Rams website. Even the website doesn't know who they are. What a joke.

    I truly think that if we don't pull in at least a serviceable WR by the trade deadline Sam will be the victim. Against Detroit's secondary (one of the worst in the league) these two clowns couldn't get open and Bradford was sent running for his life. It really looked like 09 all over again. 1:30 drives, no td's a QB hitting 3 yard passes unable to find anyone deeper and a defense forced to be on the field for 45 minutes. We are in the hunt for our division and it could be had at 7-9. Let's make this thing happen and at least show the NFL that we are going to be a force very soon if not this season. Go Rams!

    Just for kicks here is a list of a few #1's and how productive they were from the start, not 3-4 years later (for those of you who think we should just sit back and watch our team dissolve). If you have a good player you know it from the start.

    Larry Fitzgerald- 1st year 780 and 8 td's 2nd 1,409 and 10 td's

    M. Colston- 1st year 1,038 and 8 td's 2nd 1,202 and 11 td's

    B Marshall- 1st year 309 and 2 td's 2nd 1,325 7td's

    A Johnson- 1st year 976 and 4 td's 2nd 1,142 7 td's

    R Moss- 1st year 1,313 and 17 td's 2nd 1,413 and 11 td's

    Desean Jackson 1st year 912 and 2 td's 2nd 1,156 and 9 td's

  3. #3
    Bing69's Avatar
    Bing69 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    775
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Ill throw this out there, trade for V.Jackson, then draft AJ Green / Julio Jones with our 1st round pick. Now, that would be an aggressive front office move.....

  4. #4
    bruce4life's Avatar
    bruce4life is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Hemet/San Diego CA
    Age
    34
    Posts
    2,789
    Rep Power
    31

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    hMMMMMM interesting read

  5. #5
    C-Mob 71's Avatar
    C-Mob 71 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    S. Illinois
    Posts
    1,506
    Rep Power
    45

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Also just want to throw out the fact that Steven Jackson is not getting any younger, his window for helping us win a division championship is closing. Does the Beast have enough left to wait for a rookie wide receiver to develop into a true threat?

  6. #6
    richtree's Avatar
    richtree is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,122
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    IF, that's a big if, we are looking for a short term fix at WR, I still wouldn't want VJax.

    With him needing a deal and the labor issue undefined for next season, I would pass on the oft-problem VJax. One has to believe he is over-valued from the SD system.

    Just look at Malcolm Floyd. I would rather go other places. There are a ton of free agent WR's at seasons end.

    Once we know there will be football next season, we can throw some money at one of these guys. Then we have Clayton and Avery back with a new FA WR.

    Either way we need to draft athletes and playmakers like McCluster, Berry, Harvin, etc...

  7. #7
    NJ Ramsfan1 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    2,192
    Rep Power
    69

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    God, I'm so sick of this Vincent Jackson nonsense. The guy is a major risk for all of the reasons listed about a billion times on this board. Not only that, his salary would command another major financial commitment for a team (Rams) that already has major obligations to Bradford, Long, Smith and several other high draft choices, including Laurinaitis, who we'll undoubtedly want to lock up shortly.

    We are building through the draft. A receiver is undoubtedly high on the list for next year. We are not unloading more draft picks for a guy who is a personally undisciplined ****head, regardless of his production.

    There is an excellent article in this week's sports illustrated that clearly explains the considerable risk involved with getting a guy of Jackson's ilk. I consider it suggested reading to you guys who continue to harp on the "get Vincent Jackson" bandwagon.

  8. #8
    RockinRam's Avatar
    RockinRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    4,074
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Ehhh...


    I prefer A.J Green. Maybe even Julio Jones.

  9. #9
    thoey's Avatar
    thoey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas, United States
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,017
    Rep Power
    32

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    I am not on the "get VJ" bandwagon. I am on the "Get SOMEONE" bandwagon.

    I just want the team to show improvement from our most recent past. Yes, we have two wins, better than last year. And I would consider it a successful year with six. But I want Sam to use the games this year to get better so that we can possibly be competitive next year. Without a true WR, I "feel" he will not be getting what he needs out of it to advance.

    Luckily, I am not the coach or FO...
    This space for rent...

  10. #10
    mde8352gorams's Avatar
    mde8352gorams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Age
    61
    Posts
    1,669
    Rep Power
    19

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Ramsfan1 View Post
    God, I'm so sick of this Vincent Jackson nonsense. The guy is a major risk for all of the reasons listed about a billion times on this board. Not only that, his salary would command another major financial commitment for a team (Rams) that already has major obligations to Bradford, Long, Smith and several other high draft choices, including Laurinaitis, who we'll undoubtedly want to lock up shortly.

    We are building through the draft. A receiver is undoubtedly high on the list for next year. We are not unloading more draft picks for a guy who is a personally undisciplined ****head, regardless of his production.

    There is an excellent article in this week's sports illustrated that clearly explains the considerable risk involved with getting a guy of Jackson's ilk. I consider it suggested reading to you guys who continue to harp on the "get Vincent Jackson" bandwagon.
    I read it NJ RAMSFAN and it was very insightful. I agree with you this VJax stuff is crazy. We're not going to take a risky player who will destroy our salary structure. We're going to learn to live without a top-flight WR this season and still compete, watch what happens. I still believe "it's the QB stupid" and we have a great one in the making.

    Go Rams!

  11. #11
    thermobee's Avatar
    thermobee is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Age
    28
    Posts
    580
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Ramsfan1 View Post
    God, I'm so sick of this Vincent Jackson nonsense. The guy is a major risk for all of the reasons listed about a billion times on this board. Not only that, his salary would command another major financial commitment for a team (Rams) that already has major obligations to Bradford, Long, Smith and several other high draft choices, including Laurinaitis, who we'll undoubtedly want to lock up shortly.

    We are building through the draft. A receiver is undoubtedly high on the list for next year. We are not unloading more draft picks for a guy who is a personally undisciplined ****head, regardless of his production.

    There is an excellent article in this week's sports illustrated that clearly explains the considerable risk involved with getting a guy of Jackson's ilk. I consider it suggested reading to you guys who continue to harp on the "get Vincent Jackson" bandwagon.
    You wouldnt understand... Its a Jersey thing

  12. #12
    RAM-BO's Avatar
    RAM-BO is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Gainesville, VA
    Posts
    907
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Quote Originally Posted by thermobee View Post
    You wouldnt understand... Its a Jersey thing
    Snooki wants SMOOSH SMOOSH

  13. #13
    Rambunctious's Avatar
    Rambunctious is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,198
    Rep Power
    53

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Quote Originally Posted by ludairv View Post

    I think we can all see that there are far more busts than there are #1's on this list. Hell there are far more busts than there are serviceable wideouts on this list. So, I would like someone to tell me why it would be more intelligent to draft a WR and pay him top dollar over trading the pick for a young WR that has already proven himself to be a high caliber NFL wideout.

    I understand your point but it's not as simple as that I don't think.

    I'm about to make a point that I believe to be true but I don't have any examples so I will ask the board for help if they know of any.

    Picking a player from the draft does not come with a guarantee but neither does signing a proven player. Plenty of players have signed their big "earned" contracts only to go on to not perform well.

    And just in the realm of hypothetical, which I'm not a big fan of, what if we had gotten VJax early on instead of Clayton. What if it was him streaking down the sideline only to be lost for the season.

  14. #14
    swatter555's Avatar
    swatter555 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    484
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Quote Originally Posted by NJ Ramsfan1 View Post
    God, I'm so sick of this Vincent Jackson nonsense. The guy is a major risk for all of the reasons listed about a billion times on this board. Not only that, his salary would command another major financial commitment for a team (Rams) that already has major obligations to Bradford, Long, Smith and several other high draft choices, including Laurinaitis, who we'll undoubtedly want to lock up shortly.

    We are building through the draft. A receiver is undoubtedly high on the list for next year. We are not unloading more draft picks for a guy who is a personally undisciplined ****head, regardless of his production.

    There is an excellent article in this week's sports illustrated that clearly explains the considerable risk involved with getting a guy of Jackson's ilk. I consider it suggested reading to you guys who continue to harp on the "get Vincent Jackson" bandwagon.

    We are rebuilding through the draft as you say, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make deals that help us compete in the short or long term. The fact is that we have one of the worst WR groups in the NFL and it is hurting us. For the first time in years its looks like we can compete, but that prospect is fading quickly imo without more help for Bradford. Maybe its ok for you if the Rams fall into terribledom again the second half of the year, but its not ok with me and many others. It should not be an acceptable state of affairs to let the Rams lose 10+ games again without at least making some attempt to help in the present.

    This "next year" mentality has killed the Rams fan base. With have fielded some horrible teams the last few years and that some people are starting to expect the front office to be a little more aggressive should not come as a surprise. If we simply wait till next year to draft a WR (and I still contend that the Rams would never draft a WR #1), we are taking a big risk. Drafting a WR and bringing him up to a high caliber of play takes years in most cases. We have a problem that needs to be solved now, not maybe years from now. That is why I think drafting a WR instead of trading for one is a mistake.

    And so what VJAX want 8 million a year; what the hell else would you expect?? If the Rams dip into the FA market next year for a top flight WR, 8 million is going to be a bargain. Bottom line is this- if all we need to give up is a 2nd and a 4th to get Jackson that is easily the best way to go. Chances are that VJAX is going to make an impact this year and for years to come, much more so than a possible rookie WR (of which we have no clue as to who we are going to draft).

    Oh well, I doubt the front office will do anything and pretty soon you won't have to tolerate differing opinions on the subject. To me though, the Rams passed up a great opportunity to compete now. As we will see on Sunday, the Chargers are going to destroy us and leaving us sobbing in the corner.

  15. #15
    berg8309's Avatar
    berg8309 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,896
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Should the Rams be taking more risks? (article)

    Quote Originally Posted by swatter555 View Post
    And so what VJAX want 8 million a year; what the hell else would you expect?? If the Rams dip into the FA market next year for a top flight WR, 8 million is going to be a bargain. Bottom line is this- if all we need to give up is a 2nd and a 4th to get Jackson that is easily the best way to go. Chances are that VJAX is going to make an impact this year and for years to come, much more so than a possible rookie WR (of which we have no clue as to who we are going to draft).

    Oh well, I doubt the front office will do anything and pretty soon you won't have to tolerate differing opinions on the subject. To me though, the Rams passed up a great opportunity to compete now. As we will see on Sunday, the Chargers are going to destroy us and leaving us sobbing in the corner.
    So you assume Jackson would sign a long term contract with us? Also that a 2nd and 4th was all that was needed? Have a source for that? Last I read they wanted two 2nds. That's a lot for a guy who may end up suspended for a year, and what if he only sign a one year deal here, and leaves for his coveted free agency? Great trade then, right? We get a little more competitive now, and a lot less later. Also, he isn't Fitzgerald, or Marshall, or even Boldin. Why should he be paid like them and command equal trade value? He shouldn't, people have convinced themselves he is "elite" and somehow all on his own makes us playoff contenders simply because they want to believe it. Jackson will get covered like a blanket here. He can stretch the field, that is his specialty. He doesn't get open like Fitz or Johnson do on short and medium routes. I am not convinced he is the answer in general, I don't think he is that valuable without a stronger supporting cast to take the defense's eye off him, and he doesn't catch that many balls for a "#1". Way too pricey and way too many unknowns for a guy who won't do what everyone thinks he will.

    Also, if the Chargers "destroy" us, it would seem to imply their offense has their way with the defense. Would having Vjax lining up at wideout and catching 5, maybe 6 balls on a good day have really made the defense stifle Philip Rivers? The answer is no. The idea that upgrading one out of 22 people on the field would take us from "sobbing in the corner" to competing is ridiculous.

    Jackson is not coming to the Rams. I'm sorry you are all much smarter than every (all) GM who didn't pay Jackson's asking price, not knowing they were getting a true #1 elite receiver back and what a bargain it is, since (SURPRISE!) a high draft pick doesn't guarantee success. Not happening unless the Chargers bring down their asking price, and I doubt that happens.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Jim Thomas Live March 26 - Draft Chat
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -03-27-2010, 01:02 PM
  2. Jim Thomas Live - January 12, 2010
    By r8rh8rmike in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -01-13-2010, 11:38 PM
  3. Gordo Post Game Chat
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-03-2008, 02:27 PM
  4. Gordo Live, Monday, March 3rd
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -03-04-2008, 07:22 PM
  5. Jim Thomas Live, November 6, 2007
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-06-2007, 06:41 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
  •