Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49
  1. #16
    clarasDK is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Age
    39
    Posts
    424
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    I like the Idea maybe we could sweaten the deal with a conditional pick for 2011 ontop to take the injury risc out of it for the Chiefs.


  2. #17
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,541
    Rep Power
    81

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Carriker has no value. Zero. He has accomplished nothing, been hurt every year and is currently coming off a season ending injury. He is also still on a first round money contract. Reality check guys, keep in mind that the spot in which a player was drafted is not relevant to the team trading for him. Whats relevant is the quality of his play and the best predictor of future performance is past performance. Dorsey certainly hasnt lived up to the hype. Carriker has done far less than dorsey.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  3. #18
    PeoriaRam's Avatar
    PeoriaRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    2,173
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    Carriker has no value. Zero. He has accomplished nothing, been hurt every year and is currently coming off a season ending injury. He is also still on a first round money contract. Reality check guys, keep in mind that the spot in which a player was drafted is not relevant to the team trading for him. Whats relevant is the quality of his play and the best predictor of future performance is past performance. Dorsey certainly hasnt lived up to the hype. Carriker has done far less than dorsey.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel
    To be fair, his first round money contract is still much cheaper than Dorsey's. Which might be a sweetener were the salary cap still a going concern. *sighs*

  4. #19
    sosa39rams's Avatar
    sosa39rams is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hamilton, On
    Posts
    5,424
    Rep Power
    43

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    That would be a nice pick up. Get a dominating d-line.

  5. #20
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is online now Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,555
    Rep Power
    144

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Why trade for the poor man's Suh (Dorsey) when we can just get the real thing?
    "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

  6. #21
    RebelYell's Avatar
    RebelYell is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    St. Louis ,Missouri
    Posts
    2,342
    Rep Power
    44

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Why trade for the poor man's Suh (Dorsey) when we can just get the real thing?
    I believe the point was that you'd still get Suh in the draft. It's just replacing one DT with another that is already on the roster.

    I'm with GC, don't think Carriker has any value until he proves a heck of a lot.

  7. #22
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,326
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Optimistic Lamb View Post
    Alright Nick, what would make this trade happen between the Chiefs and Rams? I'm of the same opinion you are, that a straight up trade wouldn't be adequate. But i do see a good probability of this happening in one form or another. Either we sweeten the deal or we have to trade our #1 spot. I'm not as polished up on this topic as you seem to be. So what would be our options?
    The biggest thing standing in the way between this trade is probably the Chiefs' desire (or lack there of) to move up to the first overall pick.

    Just last season, the Chiefs spent a Top 3 pick on a 3-4 DE. I don't think it's very reasonable to think they'd trade away their other starting DE as well as other picks in order to move up and replace the guy they just dealt.

    I just don't see much motivation for the Chiefs to move up for a position that they're relatively okay at. They're much more in need of other positions like WR, OL, LB, DB... things they could actually get if they traded down, not up.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see the Chiefs strike a deal with Buffalo if the Bills want to get in front of Seattle and take a quarterback.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  8. #23
    The Optimistic Lamb's Avatar
    The Optimistic Lamb is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    351
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    I'm saying we get Dorsey and Suh!!!
    I think getting Dorsey is worth trading carriker and a couple picks away. I'm convinced Dorsey is not a bust, just in the wrong system. With Dorsey, Long, Suh, Hall, and coach Spags I think we have the potential to be one of the best D-lines in the NFL.

    FEARSOME FOURSOME!!!!

  9. #24
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,326
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Optimistic Lamb View Post
    I'm saying we get Dorsey and Suh!!!
    I think getting Dorsey is worth trading carriker and a couple picks away. I'm convinced Dorsey is not a bust, just in the wrong system. With Dorsey, Long, Suh, Hall, and coach Spags I think we have the potential to be one of the best D-lines in the NFL.

    FEARSOME FOURSOME!!!!
    Sorry, I thought you were still going with your original proposal of the Rams trading the #1 pick to the Chiefs for Dorsey and their #5 pick and perhaps something else.

    I agree with the others who said Carriker essentially has no value at this point. The guy can't stay healthy enough to entice anyone to want him, and there's a chance he might get cut this offseason anyways. So if someone is even remotely interested, they may as well just wait it out.

    As for trading for Dorsey and then drafting Suh, it seems like a bit of overkill to me. I think the Rams would be better off adding a DT and a DE rather than two DTs.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  10. #25
    The Optimistic Lamb's Avatar
    The Optimistic Lamb is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    351
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    As for trading for Dorsey and then drafting Suh, it seems like a bit of overkill to me. I think the Rams would be better off adding a DT and a DE rather than two DTs.
    You dnt have to skip on Dorsey just because we need another position too. In fact I'm pretty satisfied with Ah You and Adeyanju at LDE. Grab a depth pick in the draft to rotate with them. (Or move Carriker over since we can't trade him)

    But looking at our DT needs...ugh. Who we got at LDT? Carriker, Douzable, Bradwell, Gibson, and Ramsey. The only one I'd keep would be Ramsey. (*The coaches seem to like Douzable though as a project)

    Now what we got at RDT? Ryan & Scott. We could use a legit monster over here. Keep Ryan and Scott in the rotation.

    This should fix most of our problems on defense:
    Suh>Ramsey>Douzable
    Dorsey>Ryan>Scott
    Last edited by The Optimistic Lamb; -02-23-2010 at 12:44 PM.

  11. #26
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,326
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Optimistic Lamb View Post
    You dnt have to skip on Dorsey just because we need another position too. In fact I'm pretty satisfied with Ah You and Adeyanju at LDE. Grab a depth pick in the draft to rotate with them. (Or move Carriker over since we can't trade him)

    But looking at our DT needs...ugh. Who we got at LDT? Carriker, Douzable, Bradwell, Gibson, and Ramsey. The only one I'd keep would be Ramsey. (*The coaches seem to like Douzable though as a project)

    Now what we got at RDT? Ryan & Scott. We could use a legit monster over here. Keep Ryan and Scott in the rotation.

    This should fix most of our problems on defense:
    Suh>Ramsey>Douzable
    Dorsey>Ryan>Scott
    Well, I disagree. I don't think the combination of Ah You and Adeyanju provides much, and I've already talked about Carriker not being much of a fit at 4-3 DE. The Rams need someone who can consistently challenge the edge opposite of Chris Long; I don't see anyone on the roster capable of doing this.

    At defensive tackle, the Rams have a starter in Ryan already. Another starter next to him is needed, but adding two is overkill in my opinion, given so many other areas in need of help.

    Maybe you trade for Dorsey if you're going to go another direction with that first round pick, but I think there are better ways to spend this team's resources than trading for Dorsey AND drafting Suh.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  12. #27
    The Optimistic Lamb's Avatar
    The Optimistic Lamb is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    351
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    At defensive tackle, the Rams have a starter in Ryan already. Another starter next to him is needed, but adding two is overkill in my opinion, given so many other areas in need of help.
    I would attempt to go after Dorsey and for the right price I'd grab him in a heart beat. I can't imagine how teams will plan for that. Overkill? I hope so.

    Ryan is good and Scott is promising, but with Spag's defense, DT's are rotated in and out. You suggest we grab another project guy? C. Ryan + 2 projects = good RDT? Do you suggest we spend a high draft pick on on depth? Take an old vet from FA?

    Or my thought, go trade for the most promising prospect who will be here for years to come. Dorsey.

    The question is how much for Dorsey? What are we willing to give up?
    If the price is right...

  13. #28
    KCRamFan's Avatar
    KCRamFan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Age
    41
    Posts
    79
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    While I agree that Dorsey would probably be a good fit for the Rams, I just don't see how it would happen.

    I don't see anyway that the Chiefs would trade Dorsey for #33 and Carriker. I think it would take a bit more for them to do a trade.

    If the Rams are going to give up pick #33 and other picks I want another player involved too.

    Rams get: Glen Dorsey, Derrick Johnson

    Chiefs get: #33, Carriker, and ?

    I think the Chiefs would want our 3rd rounder as well at least. Maybe the Rams could offer next year's 2nd rounder instead. Not sure what it would take to get the deal done.

    Thoughts?

  14. #29
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,326
    Rep Power
    153

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Optimistic Lamb View Post
    Ryan is good and Scott is promising, but with Spag's defense, DT's are rotated in and out. You suggest we grab another project guy? C. Ryan + 2 projects = good RDT? Do you suggest we spend a high draft pick on on depth? Take an old vet from FA?
    I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore, or what you're suggesting my opinion is. So let me try to clarify.

    The 2007 New York Giants defense under Spagnuolo featured a rotation at defensive tackle in order to get Justin Tuck, a defensive end, on the field more. Besides moving Tuck inside, the Giants did not have a deep cast of defensive tackles. The 2008 roster didn't have amazing depth at the position either; behind starters Cofield and Robbins were Renaldo Wynn and Jay Alford.

    So yes, I think it's overkill for the Rams to spend both the first overall pick on a defensive tackle in Ndamukong Suh AND trade who knows what to Kansas City to acquire Glenn Dorsey.

    So my suggestion would be to draft Suh first overall with the intention of him starting next to Ryan on the defensive line, and NOT trade for Dorsey. Then, either in free agency or the draft, St. Louis needs to find another defensive end to start opposite of Chris Long rather than count on two depth players in Ah You and Adeyanju.

    Assuming the Rams draft Suh, adding a third starting-caliber defensive tackle in Dorsey is a luxury the Rams simply can't afford at this point, because they have so many needs elsewhere. If the Rams do not intend to draft Suh, then I think a trade for Dorsey may make sense. But doing both just doesn't seem like a logical allocation of resources.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Two
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  15. #30
    The Optimistic Lamb's Avatar
    The Optimistic Lamb is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    351
    Rep Power
    5

    Re: Glen Dorsey to > Rams: Makes sense...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    I'm not sure what you're arguing anymore, or what you're suggesting my opinion is. So let me try to clarify.

    Assuming the Rams draft Suh, adding a third starting-caliber defensive tackle in Dorsey is a luxury the Rams simply can't afford at this point, because they have so many needs elsewhere. If the Rams do not intend to draft Suh, then I think a trade for Dorsey may make sense. But doing both just doesn't seem like a logical allocation of resources.

    The difference between us is that I don't hold C. Ryan in as high of regard as you do. Is he a solid player, yes. Would he be a legit starter on other teams? hmmm... idk. To me I see Ryan as a solid player in a weak DT rotation. If an opportunity arises to beef up the rotation, I'll jump on it, but only at the right price. If we have to give up an arm and a leg to get Dorsey, you will be right in saying that it is a misuse of the team's resources.
    Last edited by The Optimistic Lamb; -02-24-2010 at 05:18 PM.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: -06-19-2009, 09:04 AM
  2. Gordo Live, Monday, March 3rd
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -03-04-2008, 07:22 PM
  3. Gordo 2/4/08
    By ramsplaya16 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -02-04-2008, 07:01 PM
  4. Jim Thomas Live, Jan 4th
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -01-05-2008, 09:34 AM
  5. Jim Thomas Live: 12/11/07
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -12-11-2007, 07:59 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
  •