Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    18,908
    Rep Power
    147

    Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade
    By Rob Rang
    NFL Draft Scout
    Posted on: April 20, 2010 8:52 am

    As I reported a week ago and Cleveland Browns' general manager Tom Heckert publicly confirmed two days later, the St. Louis Rams are having internal discussions about trading out of the No. 1 pick.

    With the several potential suitors (Cleveland, Washington, Seattle, Denver), it is possible that the Rams get the 3,000 "points" as required in the draft pick trade chart every team and media member refers to in these situations.

    Far be it from me to offer the Rams, and specifically general manager Billy Devaney, advice on the situation, but I'm going to anyway:

    Dear St. Louis Rams,

    If you are not 100% sure that Bradford is the answer to your problems, trade the pick.

    Even if it means getting less value than the talking heads think you should.

    Sincerely,

    Rob Rang
    Trading out of the No. 1 pick for less than its perceived value will likely generate some negative reaction from other teams and the media.

    The reality is, the Rams, winners of only 6/48 games over the past three regular seasons have holes throughout their roster. The 2010 draft is as deep and talented as any we've seen in over a decade. The money saved on not utilizing the first overall pick would cover the extra players.

    And for all of the talk about how difficult it is to trade out of the top pick, the last two teams that did so, received more than fair value for their courage -- though they weren't necessarily viewed as the consensus "winners" when making the deal on draft day.

    The San Diego Chargers did it the unconventional way in 2004, selecting Eli Manning with the first pick and then shipping he to the Giants for the 4th overall selection, Philip Rivers, and three picks that the Chargers ultimately turned into Shawne Merriman and Nate Kaeding and veteran offensive tackle Roman Oben.

    San Diego was involved in the last trade involving the No. 1 pick, as well, trading out of the top spot in 2001 to Atlanta. The Falcons got Michael Vick and the Chargers got the fifth pick, which they used on LaDainian Tomlison, as well as Atlanta's 3rd round pick in 2001 (Chargers selected CB Tay Cody), second round pick in 2002 (WR Reche Caldwell) and veteran receiver/returner Tim Dwight. Having not filled their quarterback need in the first round, the Chargers used their first pick of the second round on some guy named Brees.

    There will be those that argue the Rams should simply ignore Bradford and use the top pick on their highest rated player, almost surely Ndamukong Suh or Gerald McCoy.

    Unfortunately for St. Louis, having spent high first round selections on the defensive line in 2007 (Adam Carriker) and 2008 (Chris Long) likely precludes the team from doing so.

    My admittedly two-cent advice? Capitalize on the best deal you can get and trade out. Let someone else gamble on Sam Bradford's shoulder. Fill other areas of concern with the first round pick(s). And take the quarterback you really want -- Texas' Colt McCoy -- 33rd overall.

    Who knows, maybe the short, remarkably accurate, gutty leader is the second coming of Drew Brees, after all.


  2. #2
    TekeRam's Avatar
    TekeRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, United States
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3,837
    Rep Power
    70

    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    Absolutely right. Bradford's grown on me as I've slowly grown to accept that he'll probably be the pick, but since he's never been a super crazy good, oh my god, definite number one kind of guy, I'm not sold on him being the pick, not when there's the possibility to trade down for even something that isn't a "king's ransom." We have more holes than picks, so let's get more picks and go after McCoy at 33. Worse comes to worse, we use some of our new ammo to trade with the Vikings, the most likely team to select McCoy, though I don't think they will. Not when they count on Favre coming back for another shot at a Super Bowl.

    So, in summary, trade the hell out of #1 for whatever we can get, and go after QB in round 2.
    I believe!

  3. #3
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    The problem remains-the franchise does not get value out of the 7 hole. They won't get the best DT(s), they won't get the best QB, they will (likely) not get the best OT, CJ Spiller and Eric Berry, while talented, are wasteful picks considering the rather glaring needs elsewhere, and everybody else is a reach. Oh...and whoever is taken is getting paid $50 to $60 million.

    Yeah giving Bradford $80+ million might be a bad idea. Dealing the pick is a worse idea.

  4. #4
    Richbert88's Avatar
    Richbert88 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Age
    47
    Posts
    1,140
    Rep Power
    30

    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    The Rams, in the past, have had trouble finding value at any spot in the first round.

    This team has so many needs, at this point I prefer the shot gun to the sniper rifle for targeting those needs. Perhaps some of them have a chance of being worth more than a 5th rounder in a couple years.
    Semper Fi!

  5. #5
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    Quote Originally Posted by Richbert88 View Post
    The Rams, in the past, have had trouble finding value at any spot in the first round.

    This team has so many needs, at this point I prefer the shot gun to the sniper rifle for targeting those needs. Perhaps some of them have a chance of being worth more than a 5th rounder in a couple years.
    Given our catastrophic inability to develop talent across the board, I'm not sure that giving up on the guys with the highest floor is worth one or two more cracks at the well of diminishing talent.

  6. #6
    dave626's Avatar
    dave626 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mo.
    Posts
    246
    Rep Power
    6

    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    Well actually, this logic of trading the pick for LESS than market value is right in line with the FOs decisions up to this point, the way other teams are trading for players they need in this crazy year is just foolish to our 1-15 FO. I'm sure sitting on our hands will get it done.

  7. #7
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,000
    Rep Power
    164

    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    I don't know how to respond to these types of articles other than to say, "depends on what is offered."

    Of course, the sportswriters will criticize the Rams for not trading the pick without even knowing what was offered.

  8. #8
    Varg6's Avatar
    Varg6 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    3,593
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    Wow, if life was that simple then I think we'd all be millionaires.


    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

  9. #9
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,214
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    There just aren't a lot of trade opportunities. First of all Tampa is the only team that is likely to trade up to get Suh and I can't comprehend how a team pays that much money for a DT. I'm not even going with that scenario. So that leaves Bradford and teams looking for a QB:

    Kansas City: Highly unlikely with the money they are paying their QB right now.

    Seattle? Best trade option probably. They have two first round picks and the Rams could trade down to 6, get the 14th also and still get another 4th rounder. But do you trade within the division? I would. It's honestly, the only trade scenario I see as even possible unless the Rams move most of the benefit to 2011's draft.

    Cleveland? In reality they have to give up their first and second this year and some picks next year. They are horrible so I don't see it happening.

    Buffalo or Jacksonville? Same with Cleveland - just not enough to give us without it stretching out into next years 1st round pick. That's a hard sell for a franchise.

    San Francisco is possible. They have 2 first rounders and if you throw in a 2nd this year and a 2nd next year, it could work. Not likely within the division and all that.

    After that everyone is relatively happy with their QB situation or they are so far down it's irrelevant.

  10. #10
    Dominating D's Avatar
    Dominating D is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    829
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    Quote Originally Posted by PeoriaRam View Post
    Given our catastrophic inability to develop talent across the board, I'm not sure that giving up on the guys with the highest floor is worth one or two more cracks at the well of diminishing talent.
    Very well said

  11. #11
    Dominating D's Avatar
    Dominating D is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    829
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    Quote Originally Posted by PeoriaRam View Post
    The problem remains-the franchise does not get value out of the 7 hole. They won't get the best DT(s), they won't get the best QB, they will (likely) not get the best OT, CJ Spiller and Eric Berry, while talented, are wasteful picks considering the rather glaring needs elsewhere, and everybody else is a reach. Oh...and whoever is taken is getting paid $50 to $60 million.

    Yeah giving Bradford $80+ million might be a bad idea. Dealing the pick is a worse idea.
    Some mocks have Eric Berry and Jimmy Clausen sitting at the 7 spot I believe good value is there at 7.

Similar Threads

  1. Postgame Chat w/ Gordo
    By ScottD413 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -10-18-2009, 08:13 PM
  2. Rams Playoff History
    By OldRamsfan in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: -02-09-2009, 10:14 AM
  3. Gordo Post Game Chat
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-03-2008, 02:27 PM
  4. Jim Thomas Live, Nov 20th--Lots of good stuff
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: -11-21-2007, 03:18 PM
  5. RAMS Tale of The Tape
    By OldRamsfan in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -01-09-2006, 03:53 AM

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
  •