Nick, huff vs. ngata for the rams

[general counsel]

Nick, if buffalo takes justice and for some reason both ngata and huff are on the board for us at 11, which one would you take.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

[chiguy]

He prefers Huff.

[RamsFan4ever]

I would take Huff......having him next to Corey Chavous would be great

[Rambos]

I can tell you he does not want Jimmy

If Huff is on the board all I can say is

[RAMarkable]

Well this was an easy choice BEFORE we lost Pickett. Now, however, it is apparent to me that we need to get the hole we created in the middle of our line plugged; therefore I would choose Ngata.
BTW Am I the only one who is frosted that we gave Fakhir Brown $12 million over 5 years and then we end up losing Pickett over 1-2 million. Why couldn't we have given Brown say, $9.5 million over 4 years and used the rest for Pickett?

WHAT SAY YE?

[Nick]

Well this was an easy choice BEFORE we lost Pickett. Now, however, it is apparent to me that we need to get the hole we created in the middle of our line plugged; therefore I would choose Ngata.

I tend to agree with the idea that this was a no brainer before Pickett left, but I'm not sure that his absence in that NT position means we need to spend a first rounder on one.

We know that odds are slim that a rookie defensive tackle will make an immediate impact. Some say it takes 2-3 years before you see defensive tackles really show their worth in the pro game. It would seem to me you're more likely to get an immediate impact out of Huff at the safety position.

Personally, I prefer Huff. And that's no secret. Right now I have him and Ngata graded about the same - I can see both being selected in the top ten, but I could see Huff as early as five or six while Ngata probably would not go before eighth. We have needs both at FS and at DT. We also have some unproven guys at both positions in Atogwe and Kennedy. Really, it looks to be about the same situation for both positions, and I just like Huff better. Either would be a great pick IMO, though.

[RAMarkable]

Thanx for your thoughtful insights, Nick. But I would like for you to respond to the 2nd part of my post. Don't you think the Rams could have worked it out that we could have signed both Pickett and Brown?

WHAT SAY YE?

[Tony Soprano]

I agree. Huff is the better prospect.
It would be quite a victory, if we could get Huff. He's about as bulletproof a pick
as there is.

His Character is tremendous. He has a great work ethic. He's smart. And maybe the biggest: his injury history. He's durable and has played against the very best competition in the Country (only Reggie Bush and Matt Leinart).

.

[Nick]

Don't you think the Rams could have worked it out that we could have signed both Pickett and Brown?

Could they have? Who knows. It's hard to tell what kind of lower deal Brown would have accepted, if any. The Rams offered Pickett a five year $16 million deal ($3.2M per year average), and he accepted a four year $14 million deal ($3.5M per year average). Could the Rams have kept Pickett by adding an additional $1.5 million to his contract offer and still have landed Brown? It would be impossible to say. But what does it say of Pickett that he'd rather go play for a team that will likely be less competitive with a less experience coaching staff for a mere $1.5 million more that he may not even see?

[ramhard]

Nick,

I sorta understand but 1.5 M is 1.5 M. Still a lot of money for most folks. The question is what is the difference in the first 3 years... but if over 1M, that's a lotta loose change. If another job offered us 1M more we'd bolt, these guys have shorter job spans than us - so I don't begrudge them getting as much as they can as soon as they can.

[Nick]

I sorta understand but 1.5 M is 1.5 M. Still a lot of money for most folks. The question is what is the difference in the first 3 years... but if over 1M, that's a lotta loose change. If another job offered us 1M more we'd bolt, these guys have shorter job spans than us - so I don't begrudge them getting as much as they can as soon as they can.

I didn't explain my post very well. The Rams actually offered Pickett more total money. St. Louis' offer of $16 million over five years would pay Pickett more than the four-year $14 million he's getting in Green Bay, assuming the entire contract is honored.

The difference is in the average. Green Bay's contract pays Pickett an average of $3.5 million per year, whereas the Rams' contract would have averaged $3.2 million per year. If the Rams wanted to present a contract that had the same average as Green Bay's deal, they would have added an additional $1.5 million to the total value of the contract.

But that doesn't change that the Rams' deal was in fact more lucrative from a total money standpoint. I think you're spot on in wondering if the Packers' deal paid more up front than the Rams' deal did, helping to make it more favorable.

According to KFFL, Pickett got $5M in bonuses (a $2M signing bonus and a $3M roster bonus) for signing with the Packers. His 2006 base salary is $1.475M, so his first year payout is about $6.5M. He'll also receive $600K in additional bonuses (a roster bonus in 2007 and $25K workout bonuses every year of the deal). In total, about 40% of his contract is made up of bonus money, 35% of it being paid to him in his first year, it seems, and his 2006 cap charge is nearly $5 million. That would likely be a tough deal to match, I would think.

[chiguy]

It didn't seem like Haslett was dying to keep Pickett to me. Either he really likes Kennedy or he didn't think very highly of Pickett.