Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,628
    Rep Power
    82

    The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    Apparantly green bay turned down two #1's from denver to get up to #5. While our #11 is a better pick than what denver had, this tells me that if we want to get high enough to get hawk, at the minimum it will cost this years number 1 and next years number 1 and that is a price that i am 99.9% sure that we will not pay, even if green bay would take it. I think green bay is locked in on hawk, unless by some miracle Super Mario falls to them. I want to see hawk on the rams so badly, but alas, it appears like it will not happen. One can always hope for some way to get him, but at the end of the day, the dallas win really knocked us out of realistic contention of getting hawk or super mario. Depending on how it all falls out, we could still be alive for a smaller trade up to get huff if we chose to go in that direction.

    Ramming speed to all

    general counsel



  2. #2
    RamsFan4ever's Avatar
    RamsFan4ever is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    GA
    Age
    21
    Posts
    1,346
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    there might be a chance to get mario williams if we trade up to #5 if this happens........
    1. Texans=Bush
    2. Saints=Ferguson
    3. Titans=Lienart
    4. Jets=Young or Cutler
    5. Rams=Williams

  3. #3
    rams_fan81's Avatar
    rams_fan81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    ohio
    Age
    22
    Posts
    520
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    I think LB is more of a need then DE

  4. #4
    RamsFan4ever's Avatar
    RamsFan4ever is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    GA
    Age
    21
    Posts
    1,346
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    ok so the its

    5. Rams=Hawk

  5. #5
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,670
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    As bad as you guys may want Hawk or anybody else in the top five, the Rams would be foolish to give up 2 number ones. If we were one player away from the superbowl then maybe it would make sense, but the way I see it, we are not that close. Therefore we should stand pat at 11 and hope someone falls since we weren't smart enough to lose to Dallas in the most meaningless game of the season.

  6. #6
    Drew4EverRams's Avatar
    Drew4EverRams is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    south wales
    Age
    38
    Posts
    341
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    Rams should never throw a game no matter what is at stake!

    i was proud as punch of our boys to win in dallas!

  7. #7
    RamsFan4ever's Avatar
    RamsFan4ever is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    GA
    Age
    21
    Posts
    1,346
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    NFL Players are paid to WIN!!!! LOSING ON PURPOSE SUCKS and that game was GREAT.... Our rookies and young people proved that they can win if they get a chance to play like Atogwe, Hargrove and etc... Even if it was a pointless game..... There is no reason to lose on PURPOSE..... Its the past now and were #11 in the draft SO DEAL WITH IT!!

  8. #8
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,628
    Rep Power
    82

    Re: The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    For those of you out there that go on the attack without bothering to exercise your basic reading skills, no one has ever said that i recall on this board that the rams players should lose on purpose. I strongly suggest that before people issue edicts to the group that they read carefully and think just a little before they criticize some people, especially those with quite a bit more experience than they have.

    Everyone is entitled to their view and no one is disputing that. However, at least do the poster the courtesy of responding to the post rather than creating your own version of what someone else said.

    The point was, and has always been, that as FANS do you want to cheer for the team to win a game that MAY not be in the best long term interests of the organization to win. Beating dallas was fun. The game was meaningless in my view. Just my opinion, but the nfl is about winning titles and given that we were out of it for sure, i would have been happier to lose that last game and have the 8th pick, thereby getting a better player or giving me a chance to trade up easier to get a major impact player, to give the rams the best chance to win a title in the future. I couldnt care less if we go 7-9 vs 5-11.

    One of the great things about the nfl with the cap and parity is that you never know when you are just one player away. what impact did the middle linebacker have on seattle last year? The teams are all pretty tightly bunched and one or two key injuries here or there can change everything. Did anyone think we were a player away in 1999?

    I want to win superbowls and the way you do that is with the best players when you are lucky enough to stay healthy. Anything that improves my chance to win a title is good, anything that doesnt is bad. Beating dallas did not enhance my chance to win a superbowl, losing to them would have given me a shot at a better player.

    If you want to disagree with that view, that is perfectly fine. I am not saying that i am correct, just my opinion. However, i am not suggesting that the players who are paid to do their best, should ever do less than their best or do anything other than try to win.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  9. #9
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,670
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    Excellent post General. I couldn't agree more. For those of you who disagree, you have a right to your opinion just as I do of mine. I'm not right or wrong and neither are you in this situation. I just happen to think logically about certain things, and to me the Rams would be in a better position today had they lost to Dallas. That simple.

  10. #10
    harrydog's Avatar
    harrydog is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    429
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    I've posted this elsewhere in this forum....I'm sorry the Rams won that game and at the time, I was hoping that they would lose.
    I don't think ANYONE here has ever said a team should lose a game on purpose - if you think that, then you're completely missing the point that's trying to be made.

  11. #11
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    28
    Posts
    4,755
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: The Rams, Hawk and Green Bay

    This makes it seem likely the Pack could be open to trading their first:

    Packers | Team could look to acquire more draft picks
    Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:02:37 -0700

    Bob McGinn, of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports the Green Bay Packers may look to acquire more picks in next week's NFL Draft. In five drafts for the Seattle Seahawks and one for the Packers, general manager Ted Thompson has traded down eight times and never traded up. He entered the 2005 draft with seven picks and finished with 11. Given the laundry list of voids on the roster, look for the Packers to turn their seven picks into a double-digit total once again. "They need a corner, they need a safety, they need two linebackers, they need a defensive end, they need two inside offensive linemen, they need a running back, a No.1 wide receiver and, really, the jury's out at quarterback," a personnel director said Friday. "They don't have a kicker and they don't have a punter. Good luck. How many picks do they have?" The scout said the Packers' depth chart had the makings of a 3-13 team.

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
  •