Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,626
    Rep Power
    167

    Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    There are a number of reasons why a trade down to acquire more choices might make sense for the Rams, but I'm not sure there are many potential trade partners.

    The most likely reason a team would trade up to #2 is to acquire one of the top QBs in the draft (presuming Stafford and Bradford both declare). However, most of the teams at the top of the draft don't need QBs. Kansas City, sitting at #3, would probably take a QB, so they could be willing to give up a pick (maybe a 3rd rounder) to swap with the Rams. Of course, that requires a bluff on the Rams' part (convincing KC that the Rams won't simply pass on a QB).

    After that, the next several teams are unlikely to draft a QB:

    (4) Seattle - possible, as Hasselbeck is getting up there and coming off an injury, but would they make an intra-division trade?
    (5) Cleveland - no (Brady Quinn)
    (6) Cincinnati - doubtful (Carson Palmer)
    (7) Oakland - no (JaMarcus Russell)
    (8) Jacksonville - no (David Garrard)
    (9) Green Bay - no (Aaron Rodgers, Brian Brohm)
    (10) San Fran - yes (but, in division)

    As for teams with multiple first rounders, there are only two. Detroit, which has the first and 20th, does not present as a trade partner. Even if the Rams wanted to trade for the 20th and 33rd picks (not a match on the value chart), I doubt that Detroit wants to pay the first and second picks in the draft. The Eagles will have two of the last 12 selections (depending on the playoffs), but that also would not be a good swap. Unless the Eagles are planning to get rid of McNabb, I doubt they'd trade three top picks (two 1s and 2 or 3, for example) to jump up and take a QB.

    So, don't be surprised if the Rams stay at #2, whether they wish to or not.
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -01-02-2009 at 04:27 PM.


  2. #2
    STLRAMSFAN's Avatar
    STLRAMSFAN is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    4
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    I hope we keep it and draft Graham Harrell. He is smart, accomplished, and he compliments a running offense. If we draft him and then concentrate on the offensive line with our fourth and fifth pick in the draft and also in free agency we could build a line to protect him. Not to mention Bulger is finished with the Rams he is like a turd in a punch bowl, so we need a good young QB who can move around in the pocket.

  3. #3
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,490
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    Great summary, Av. I agree completely, I'll be pretty surprised if we end up moving from the two-spot.

    Quote Originally Posted by STLRAMSFAN View Post
    I hope we keep it and draft Graham Harrell.
    With the second overall pick? Uhh, rather unlikely. Graham Harrell has about as much chance being drafted with the second overall pick as I do.

  4. #4
    STLRAMSFAN's Avatar
    STLRAMSFAN is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri
    Posts
    4
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    After todays performance probably not, but then again the Rams make a lot of crazy draft choices. While I'm not a Texas Tech fan at all I thought that Graham had a pretty good overall career as a Red Raider. The Rams need a quarter back now and he rarely turns the ball over, usually makes smart decisions, and he scrambles well. So what are your reasons for not believing that we could draft him? You think he is too good, not good enough, or too much money required? As for the topic of you being drafted into the NFL you really shouldn't compare yourself with talented athletes there chief. I guess I hurt your feelings talking about Bulger huh since he was probably the best quarter back the Mountaineers have ever had? So lets hear who your choice would be for the 2009 draft Mr. Sarcasm.
    Last edited by STLRAMSFAN; -01-02-2009 at 06:03 PM.

  5. #5
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,626
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    Quote Originally Posted by STLRAMSFAN View Post
    After todays performance probably not, but then again the Rams make a lot of crazy draft choices. While I'm not a Texas Tech fan at all I thought that Graham had a pretty good overall career as a Red Raider. The Rams need a quarter back now and he rarely turns the ball over, usually makes smart decisions, and he scrambles well. So what are your reasons for not believing that we could draft him? You think he is too good, not good enough, or too much money required? As for the topic of you being drafted into the NFL you really shouldn't compare yourself with talented athletes there chief. I guess I hurt your feelings talking about Bulger huh since he was probably the best quarter back the Mountaineers have ever had? So lets hear who your choice would be for the 2009 draft Mr. Sarcasm.
    Guess you missed Mr. Sarcasm's (I thought that was my name) complete first round mock.

    You also missed Nick's point. He never said that Harrell won't be drafted, or even that he won't be a good player. He merely said that he won't be taken #2 in the draft. I agree entirely. Absent an off-the-chart workout, I seriously doubt he'll go in the first round. If he's available at the top of Round 3, I think the Rams should give him some consideration. You clearly have him rated higher than most.

    As for your tone... consider this your only warning.

    Let's get this topic back on track, shall we?

    Anyone see a viable trade partner for the Rams' first round selection?

  6. #6
    RAMarkable is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    59
    Posts
    2,093
    Rep Power
    41

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    Quote Originally Posted by AvengerRam View Post
    There are a number of reasons why a trade down to acquire more choices might make sense for the Rams, but I'm not sure there are many potential trade partners.

    The most likely reason a team would trade up to #2 is to acquire one of the top QBs in the draft (presuming Stafford and Bradford both declare). However, most of the teams at the top of the draft don't need QBs. Kansas City, sitting at #3, would probably take a QB, so they could be willing to give up a pick (maybe a 3rd rounder) to swap with the Rams. Of course, that requires a bluff on the Rams' part (convincing KC that the Rams won't simply pass on a QB).

    After that, the next several teams are unlikely to draft a QB:

    (4) Seattle - possible, as Hasselbeck is getting up there and coming off an injury, but would they make an intra-division trade?
    (5) Cleveland - no (Brady Quinn)
    (6) Cincinnati - doubtful (Carson Palmer)
    (7) Oakland - no (JaMarcus Russell)
    (8) Jacksonville - no (David Garrard)
    (9) Green Bay - no (Aaron Rodgers, Brian Brohm)
    (10) San Fran - yes (but, in division)

    As for teams with multiple first rounders, there are only two. Detroit, which has the first and 20th, does not present as a trade partner. Even if the Rams wanted to trade for the 20th and 33rd picks (not a match on the value chart), I doubt that Detroit wants to pay the first and second picks in the draft. The Eagles will have two of the last 12 selections (depending on the playoffs), but that also would not be a good swap. Unless the Eagles are planning to get rid of McNabb, I doubt they'd trade three top picks (two 1s and 2 or 3, for example) to jump up and take a QB.

    So, don't be surprised if the Rams stay at #2, whether they wish to or not.
    Oddly enough, AV, I was thinking about this subject last night. The thought occurred to me of a team that is built to win right now with an aging and now somewhat injured QB who may or may not be back next year. Moreover said team is now looking for a new HC. If you guessed the NY Jets you'd be correct. Bear with me for a bit on this one.

    If Favre does, in fact, retire that would leave the Jets with something called Kellen Clemons as their only QB. Sure they could go out and sign some bum from the garbage heap, but, dang it!!, this is NEW YORK we're talkin' about and I can't believe they are gonna sell many tickets to their new stadium next year with Elmer Fudd as their starting QB.

    So how about the following scenario: The Rams trade the 2nd pick in this years draft for:

    1.) The Jets first (17th overall) pick and their 2nd this year.

    2.) The Jets also trade their 1st and 3rd round picks for next year.

    While I realize that this is rather speculative at best stranger things have happened.

    WHAT SAY YE?

  7. #7
    Alec22's Avatar
    Alec22 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    23
    Posts
    614
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    I cant see the jets giving up two 1st rounders, a second and a third for one 1st rounder(granted its the #2 overall pick). On the other end, while it would be a great deal for the rams, its hard to imagine the #2 pick being traded down to a 17, i dont rememeber anyone with a top #1, or #2 pick trading down to the range of #17. its just unconventional.

  8. #8
    richtree's Avatar
    richtree is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,133
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    You forgot someone...eagles have 2 picks., we could trade them for both first round picks....plus...

  9. #9
    tdog08's Avatar
    tdog08 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Age
    24
    Posts
    101
    Rep Power
    6

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    Bears, Vikings,Bucs,Panthers and others

  10. #10
    CanadianRamsFan's Avatar
    CanadianRamsFan is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    239
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    What about a team that wants Crabtree? I could see Oakland wanting him (they always take the big name skilled players in the first round IE McFadden last year) They don't have a big name Receiver or any good ones IMO, and the play of CJ this past year on an awful detroit team might make them consider that. Just a thought...

  11. #11
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is online now Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,927
    Rep Power
    94

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianRamsFan View Post
    What about a team that wants Crabtree? I could see Oakland wanting him (they always take the big name skilled players in the first round IE McFadden last year) They don't have a big name Receiver or any good ones IMO, and the play of CJ this past year on an awful detroit team might make them consider that. Just a thought...
    The problem there is that Oakland has nothing that resembles an OL. If they're intent on allowing Russell and McFadden to thrive, OL is the best bet. I don't see anyone looking to take a leaf from the book of the Detroit Lions, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by tdog08 View Post
    Bears, Vikings,Bucs,Panthers and others
    All are picking later on, and what they'd have to give up would be rather steep. Of those, I don't see the Bears, Vikings or Panthers looking towards a QB anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAMarkable View Post

    If Favre does, in fact, retire that would leave the Jets with something called Kellen Clemons as their only QB. Sure they could go out and sign some bum from the garbage heap, but, dang it!!, this is NEW YORK we're talkin' about and I can't believe they are gonna sell many tickets to their new stadium next year with Elmer Fudd as their starting QB.

    So how about the following scenario: The Rams trade the 2nd pick in this years draft for:

    1.) The Jets first (17th overall) pick and their 2nd this year.

    2.) The Jets also trade their 1st and 3rd round picks for next year.
    It's interesting... but I think the Giants gave up something similar in order to get Eli Manning from Pick 4. The Rams would be missing out on a lot of high-end talent and I'm not sure that the Jets 1st and 3rd next season will be motivation enough. If they were in the top 10- certainly an option. It's just a long way down.

  12. #12
    Mooselini's Avatar
    Mooselini is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    3,724
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    I was thinking about this the other day. Came down to this...

    We are staying at #2.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Devaney, if you care about this team... fire the offensive coordinator!!!!

  13. #13
    tonyray05's Avatar
    tonyray05 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    211
    Rep Power
    7

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    I agree Moose, why should we give up the #2 , this will be the a great opportunity to get a franchise OL.

  14. #14
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,626
    Rep Power
    167

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    Quote Originally Posted by richtree View Post
    You forgot someone...eagles have 2 picks., we could trade them for both first round picks....plus...
    Actually, if you read my first post, I mentioned them. Their two #1s are not worth the 2nd pick in the draft. They'd have to throw in at least their third round choice (though I'd probably hold out for their second round pick). That's a lot of picks to trade for Stafford or Bradford.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianRamsFan
    What about a team that wants Crabtree? I could see Oakland wanting him (they always take the big name skilled players in the first round IE McFadden last year) They don't have a big name Receiver or any good ones IMO, and the play of CJ this past year on an awful detroit team might make them consider that. Just a thought
    Interesting thought. I guess with Al Davis, anything is possible. For the Rams, dropping to the seventh pick would still likely give them a shot at a top OT. I'd think Oakland would have to throw in their #2 or perhaps a #3 and a player.

    Quote Originally Posted by tdog08
    Bears, Vikings,Bucs,Panthers and others
    Sure, any of those teams might want a top QB, but what do they have to offer the Rams? Absent a trade involving a 2009 and 2010 first round pick (even that might not be enough), those teams would have a hard time putting together an attractive package for the Rams.
    Last edited by AvengerRam; -01-04-2009 at 12:02 AM.

  15. #15
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,490
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick

    Quote Originally Posted by STLRAMSFAN View Post
    So what are your reasons for not believing that we could draft him?
    We could draft him at some point, I'm not disputing that.

    What I disagree with is that the Rams do it with the second overall pick. Because that's what this thread was about, meaning that when you said, "I hope we keep it and draft Graham Harrell," there's a clear implication that you think we should spend the second overall pick on Harrell. If that's not what you meant, feel free to clarify.

    But Graham Harrell isn't a lock to go on the first day of the draft, let alone in the first round, or on top of that second overall. If the Rams want to look at him on the second day of the draft in round three or later, that's more realistic. Using the second overall pick on him? Uhh, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by STLRAMSFAN View Post
    I guess I hurt your feelings talking about Bulger huh since he was probably the best quarter back the Mountaineers have ever had?
    No, you didn't hurt my feelings. Why would critical comments about a Rams player hurt my feelings?

    And no, Bulger was not the best quarterback the Mountaineers ever had. IMHO, that title belongs to the guy that's been leading WVU to four bowl wins over the last four years - Patrick White.

    Quote Originally Posted by STLRAMSFAN View Post
    So lets hear who your choice would be for the 2009 draft Mr. Sarcasm.
    Nick's Holiday Season First-Round Mock Draft

    If you view Harrell as a contender for the top five in this draft, then I'd be interested in seeing your full first-round projection.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Jim Thomas Live
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: -11-23-2008, 08:57 PM
  2. Jim Thomas Live
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -04-09-2008, 09:53 PM
  3. Jim Thomas Chat --March 25
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -03-25-2008, 06:58 PM
  4. Gordo Live
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -03-17-2008, 07:59 PM
  5. Jim Thomas Live, Jan 4th
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -01-05-2008, 09:34 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
  •