Early Re-evaluation of the Dante Hall Trade

**Nick** · #1 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

Earlier in the week, the Rams traded a fifth round pick to Kansas City for Dante Hall. This trade also involved a swap of third round picks. Instead of picking at #82, the Rams were picking at #84 in the third round.

Because of this, the Rams missed out on both DeMarcus Tyler and Charles Johnson, and subsequently took Jonathan Wade in the third round.

Now, it may be too early to evaluate this trade until we see what we also missed out on in the fifth round and also until we see what Hall brings to the team in 2007, but right now I'm not entirely thrilled that the two-spot move down in the third round ended up costing us a chance at a defensive end like Johnson.

While I like Wade's value in the mid third, replacing him with Johnson and continuing to help the defensive line would have been a much better scenario in my opinion and would have made me feel better about passing on Crowder and Abiamiri in the second round.

Was that extra ten points on the value chart really worth it?

*Bar-bq* · #2 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nick

Earlier in the week, the Rams traded a fifth round pick to Kansas City for Dante Hall. This trade also involved a swap of third round picks. Instead of picking at #82, the Rams were picking at #84 in the third round.

Because of this, the Rams missed out on both DeMarcus Tyler and Charles Johnson, and subsequently took Jonathan Wade in the third round.

Now, it may be too early to evaluate this trade until we see what we also missed out on in the fifth round and also until we see what Hall brings to the team in 2007, but right now I'm not entirely thrilled that the two-spot move down in the third round ended up costing us a chance at a defensive end like Johnson.

While I like Wade's value in the mid third, replacing him with Johnson and continuing to help the defensive line would have been a much better scenario in my opinion and would have made me feel better about passing on Crowder and Abiamiri in the second round.

Was that extra ten points on the value chart really worth it?

Man oh man oh man. This has been rolling through my head ever since the Panthers took Johnson. I'm bummed about this move, more than any other. Not that I don't like hall, but we could have grabbed a returner on day two if needed, and stayed at 82... with a first day of Carriker, Leonard and Johnson, all guys who verged on, if not carried first round grades in my book.:\

*Varg6* · #3 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

I'm not happy at all with this draft to be completely honest. Carriker, I guess will be good, although my expectations aren't that high for him. Leonard seems like a great kid, good talent, but when putting Rams and his name in the same sentence, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And Wade...I don't really know who he is besides the fact that he has speed. I once again would just like to say...I really hope Linehan & Co. know what they're doing, because it kind of sounds like they don't.

*timsum1283* · #4 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

I would say the trade wasn't worth it b/c we lost both Johnson and Tyler by swapping 3rds. I really hope that there is some second day magic or else this could be a disappointing draft.

*Rambos* · #5 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

Nick

Lets talk about this after we see what Dante does for us as a return guy. We would agree today that “Tank” was off our board when we took Carriker at 13. I felt your pain when CJ was taken right in front of us. We had a need at for a return guy and we address it. If Dante looks like McDonald back there I will agree, for me it’s a wait and see on this one.

*keith m. klink* · #6 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

this second round as i stated was disapointing , i had us taking CROWDER ,he was there , and went 2 picks later . total total disapointment to me .

*r8rh8rmike* · #7 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

I'm still glad we picked up Hall, despite what in hindsight looks like a steep price because I think he'll make an impact and help us address a major problem area. As far as missing out on Johnson, I will admit it was painful, especially with him being yanked away when he was oh so close. That being said, losing Johnson would not have been an issue if we would have taken Crowder in round 2, which IMO was a tactical mistake.

**AvengerRam** · #8 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

Of course, this whole issue is dependent upon a presumption: that the Rams would have taken Johnson (or Tyler, if that's who you prefer) over Wade. I'm not sure that is the case. While I had DE as a bigger need than CB, it is entirely possible that the Rams did not. If that is the case, the swap with KC had absolutely zero impact.

*Fortuninerhater* · #9 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

Nice try but that doesn't make me feel any better Avenger.

*jjigga3000* · #10 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Of course, this whole issue is dependent upon a presumption: that the Rams would have taken Johnson (or Tyler, if that's who you prefer) over Wade. I'm not sure that is the case. While I had DE as a bigger need than CB, it is entirely possible that the Rams did not. If that is the case, the swap with KC had absolutely zero impact.

What He said

*jjigga3000* · #11 (**permalink**) -29-04-2007

Allthough I see what some are saying. I believe that the rams were looking to add depth. Believing Kennedy, Glover and Wroten. Would blossom in this system this year. By them thinking this they wanted to add instant impact with depth. I also think Jonathan Wade was a depth pick also.

Remember at the end of the year the defense did start to take form. Realizing they wern't going to make the playoffs they could have packed it in. But they didn't. So I think you'll see us pick up from last year.

*max* · #12 (**permalink**) -30-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Of course, this whole issue is dependent upon a presumption: that the Rams would have taken Johnson (or Tyler, if that's who you prefer) over Wade. I'm not sure that is the case. While I had DE as a bigger need than CB, it is entirely possible that the Rams did not. If that is the case, the swap with KC had absolutely zero impact.

I thought about this when I heard Linehan say they were considering DLinemen and DBacks at that pick. So I don't think it was a slam dunk that they would have picke Johnson. But if they didn't, we'd really be screaming.

**AvengerRam** · #13 (**permalink**) -30-04-2007

Perhaps, but you have to ask yourself - with Johnson's measurables and performance last year, why did every team in the league pass on him until the middle of the 3rd Round? There must be some reason, right?

*tomahawk247* · #14 (**permalink**) -30-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Perhaps, but you have to ask yourself - with Johnson's measurables and performance last year, why did every team in the league pass on him until the middle of the 3rd Round? There must be some reason, right?

thats a good point. Wade was in the 3rd because he is a project. Tyler was there because of his character issues. so why did Johnson get there?

**Nick** · #15 (**permalink**) -30-04-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AvengerRam

Perhaps, but you have to ask yourself - with Johnson's measurables and performance last year, why did every team in the league pass on him until the middle of the 3rd Round? There must be some reason, right?

Scouts may have been concerned that his production was at least in some part due to the attention being paid to Quentin Moses, who in the end went before his teammate. Therefore the question might have been was his production more of a result of less attention or his actual talent.

That being said, in terms of the order that those DE's came off the board, I think Johnson came off fairly close to where a lot of people suspected he would. I had him as the ninth DE selected in my mock at the bottom of round two. In reality, he was the 12th DE selected in mid round three, and three guys (Woodley, Bazuin, and Moses) snuck ahead of him.