The Rams should trade down with every pick

**evil disco man** · #1 (**permalink**) -27-04-2008

If I was in the war room running the Rams draft, I would simply trade down with every single pick, eventually accumulating the entire fourth round and selecting an entire new roster. I don't know why they don't just trade down and get extra picks every time, it's so easy. I can't believe they didn't think of that. Much better than reaching on a player that fits the system.

-jake-

*richtree* · #2 (**permalink**) -27-04-2008

ha., and we ve been trading up ., lol

*itsguud* · #3 (**permalink**) -27-04-2008

I agree with you Evil, we have been reaching for players instead of using the picks to aquire more picks... not a smart draft this year for us.

*Goldenfleece* · #4 (**permalink**) -27-04-2008

Sarcasm, gentlemen. I'd rather have one guy we think will really be able to contribute than three who get cut before opening day.

*berg8309* · #5 (**permalink**) -28-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goldenfleece

Sarcasm, gentlemen. I'd rather have one guy we think will really be able to contribute than three who get cut before opening day.

But what if you could trade down, get more picks, AND get the guy you were going to pick in the first place? Then you have a guy who will really be able to contribute, and another guy who mind be a diamond in the rough.

So...we should have just stayed at 10 two years ago, picked Tye Hill like we we were going to do anyway, paid him more money, and not gotten extra picks out of it?

**evil disco man** · #6 (**permalink**) -28-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by berg8309

But what if you could trade down, get more picks, AND get the guy you were going to pick in the first place? Then you have a guy who will really be able to contribute, and another guy who mind be a diamond in the rough.

So...we should have just stayed at 10 two years ago, picked Tye Hill like we we were going to do anyway, paid him more money, and not gotten extra picks out of it?

You're missing the point. It seems like in every thread there is bound to be at least one person say, "Jeez, why didn't they just move down and grab this guy, we could've added more draft picks that way." Well, duh. I think every team would like to be able to trade down and still get the guy they want while accumulating more picks in the process.

The point is, you can't simply do that on a whim; there has to be a team interested in moving up. Even then, how are you guaranteed your guy will still fall to you? All trade talks between teams are probably filled with as many smoke and mirror tactics as we see reflected in the media.

-jake-

*Goldenfleece* · #7 (**permalink**) -28-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by berg8309

But what if you could trade down, get more picks, AND get the guy you were going to pick in the first place? Then you have a guy who will really be able to contribute, and another guy who mind be a diamond in the rough.

So...we should have just stayed at 10 two years ago, picked Tye Hill like we we were going to do anyway, paid him more money, and not gotten extra picks out of it?

No, in the case of Tye Hill, I believe there were several guys we liked in the same range, so if we didn't get Hill, we'd still get someone we liked. You trade down when there are a lot of guys you like still on the board and aren't afraid of losing one of them. You trade up when you've got one guy in particular rated significantly higher than the others at a position you're targeting.