Is "snooker" an appropriate draft strategy consideration?

[AvengerRam]

snook·er (snŏŏk'ər)

Slang

1. 1. To lead (another) into a situation in which all possible choices are undesirable; trap.
   2. To fool; dupe: "Snookered by a lot of malarkey about drilling costs, a Texas jury ... added $3 billion of punitive damages" (New Republic).
2. To leave one's opponent in the game of snooker unable to take a direct shot without striking a ball out of the required order.

Jerry: "Excuse me I'd like to return this jacket."
Teller: "Certainly. May I ask why?"
Jerry: "........For spite..."
Teller: "Spite?"
Jerry: "That's right. I don't care for the salesman that sold it to me."
Teller: "I don't think you can return an item for spite."

The trade of Donovan McNabb to the Redskins caused me to wonder... if the Rams don't select Sam Bradford, who would he most likely be selected by? Looking at the draft order, it seems to me that the most likely landing spot is Seattle. After all, Seattle needs to start grooming a young QB, and new HC Pete Carroll enthusiastically praised Bradford's Pro Day peformance, stating "he lit it up."

So, here's my question: could one appropriate reason for the Rams to select Sam Bradford be the desire to snooker the Seahawks and leave them without the option of selecting a potential franchise QB?

At first glance, it might seem a strange question. Certainly, no team would take a player that they don't highly regard themselves merely to keep him out of the hands of a rival.

In this case, though, it seems like the Rams are coming down to the wire in deciding between Bradford and a DT (probably Suh). So, if its close, would it be appropriate to take Bradford in part to ensure that the Seahawks can't? Can you select a player, in part, for "spite?"

However you feel about this notion, I think we can all agree that it would be extremely unpleasant to watch Sam Bradford develop into a Pro Bowl QB in Seattle.

[MauiRam]

However you feel about this notion, I think we can all agree that it would be extremely unpleasant to watch Sam Bradford develop into a Pro Bowl QB in Seattle.

Sam might find it difficult with Suh chasing him all over the field every time the Squawks play us .. That said, if we don't take Sam, I hope he is selected by a team from another conference.

[Varg6]

Sam might find it difficult with Suh chasing him all over the field every time the Squawks play us .. That said, if we don't take Sam, I hope he is selected by a team from another conference.

It sucks but it goes down like this: Pick your poison. Do we want to draft a guy who can be a potential Pro Bowl QB or a potential Pro Bowl DT?

[AvengerRam]

It sucks but it goes down like this: Pick your poison.

That's sort of true. The Seahawks will likely get good players with their two first round picks no matter what the Rams do, but there is one difference. If the Rams pass on Bradford, he will likely fall to Seattle. If the Rams pass on Suh, it is very unlikely that he will fall to Seattle.

[Nick]

I doubt the Seahawks would take Bradford, after just trading a third round pick and swapping spots in the second to acquire Charlie Whitehurst as their potential QB of the future. Thus, I wouldn't view Bradford as a Hawk as much of a factor in my decision making process. As Varg said, Seattle will get two good prospects regardless of what the Rams do, so I'd view it as a minimal concern at best.

[AvengerRam]

Given that Carroll attended Bradford's workout, I don't think you can rule out Seattle as a team that might take him.

[sosa39rams]

I agree with Nick. They might take Bradford, but why would they trade a third for Whitehurst? Obviously they think Whitehurst is their future QB.

[AvengerRam]

Opinions may differ. Here's Mike Sando's thought on the subject (from an article he posted today at ESPN.com):

Seattle's acquisition of Charlie Whitehurst would not prevent the team from drafting Bradford if available

[Nick]

Given that Carroll attended Bradford's workout, I don't think you can rule out Seattle as a team that might take him.

I don't think you can rule it out either; I simply said I doubt it'd happen. Yes, Seattle was represented at Bradford's pro day. But nearly every team was. The Eagles, Colts, and Patriots had representatives there, for instance.

With their first pick in the first round, Seattle has a chance to add one of the top 2-3 offensive tackles to a line in major need of help. They could also add the draft's best defensive back in Eric Berry, helping a secondary that could also use a big boost in talent. I just have a hard time seeing them pass up either opportunity to take Bradford, when they've already essentially used their third round pick (and gave up value in the second round) on a QB whom Carroll believes can develop into a top quarterback.

Doesn't mean it can't happen, just that I don't think it will.

[Bralidore(RAMMODE)]

I doubt seriously Bradford would be selected by Seattle for the given reasons. If it were the case, however, that Seattle was in the market for Bradford, I don't know so much about spite but if im on the edge of picking him anyway, it absolutely helps me that I can deny one of my arch rivals a shot at him.

Let them take a lineman or Spiller...

[Azul e Oro]

I don't follow the snookerish (snookeranian?) logic of this. There is no "required" order to restock your team especially when you also need a LT desperately and have Hasselbeck as your McNabb already, never mind the considerable investment in Whitehurst. The Hags will have excellent options, no matter what The Rams do.

I know it's Av's position that Clausen is no damned good but I don't accept that the rest of the NFL decision makers feel that way,esp out of the top 3 spots. I actually think there's a good argument that JC's greater mobility,probable durability, & proven ability to function at a high level behind a crummy line make him a better choice for The Hags or Skins if they wanted to opt for a QB before LT.Again, especially when you have a high quality vet to ease the transition.

I'm also puzzled to hear one of the leading naysayers on the idea for The Rams on picking up that has-been choker McNabb saying this turn of events definitively means the Skins wouldn't take Sam if The Rams didn't or still won't take Clausen if The Rams do. Surely WASH still needs a longterm prospect at QB as well if McNabb is just a rickety stopgap.Moreover,The Skins still have some stuff to trade, inc Campbell, to recover the draft pick they gave up for McNabb.

[shower beers]

...but, you already said spite.

[tomahawk247]

I'm also puzzled to hear one of the leading naysayers on the idea for The Rams on picking up that has-been choker McNabb saying this turn of events definitively means the Skins wouldn't take Sam if The Rams didn't or still won't take Clausen if The Rams do. Surely WASH still needs a longterm prospect at QB as well if McNabb is just a rickety stopgap.Moreover,The Skins still have some stuff to trade, inc Campbell, to recover the draft pick they gave up for McNabb.

The trade for McNabb when they already had Campbell on the roster suggests they are in "win now" mode. They cant be in win now mode and use their first two picks in the draft on the QB position. Thats why i assume they wont be taking a QB with their first rounder. I cant see them taking a position that isnt OT, since they need someone to protect McNabb's blindside

[PeoriaRam]

snook·er (snŏŏk'ər)

Slang

1. 
   
   1. To lead (another) into a situation in which all possible choices are undesirable; trap.
   2. To fool; dupe: "Snookered by a lot of malarkey about drilling costs, a Texas jury ... added $3 billion of punitive damages" (New Republic).
   
   
2. To leave one's opponent in the game of snooker unable to take a direct shot without striking a ball out of the required order.

Jerry: "Excuse me I'd like to return this jacket."
Teller: "Certainly. May I ask why?"
Jerry: "........For spite..."
Teller: "Spite?"
Jerry: "That's right. I don't care for the salesman that sold it to me."
Teller: "I don't think you can return an item for spite."

The trade of Donovan McNabb to the Redskins caused me to wonder... if the Rams don't select Sam Bradford, who would he most likely be selected by? Looking at the draft order, it seems to me that the most likely landing spot is Seattle. After all, Seattle needs to start grooming a young QB, and new HC Pete Carroll enthusiastically praised Bradford's Pro Day peformance, stating "he lit it up."

So, here's my question: could one appropriate reason for the Rams to select Sam Bradford be the desire to snooker the Seahawks and leave them without the option of selecting a potential franchise QB?

At first glance, it might seem a strange question. Certainly, no team would take a player that they don't highly regard themselves merely to keep him out of the hands of a rival.

In this case, though, it seems like the Rams are coming down to the wire in deciding between Bradford and a DT (probably Suh). So, if its close, would it be appropriate to take Bradford in part to ensure that the Seahawks can't? Can you select a player, in part, for "spite?"

However you feel about this notion, I think we can all agree that it would be extremely unpleasant to watch Sam Bradford develop into a Pro Bowl QB in Seattle.

Unfortunately for that tactic, Seattle already dealt a couple picks for Whitehearst (sp?) They aren't taking a 1st round quarterback this season.

[AvengerRam]

Unfortunately for that tactic, Seattle already dealt a couple picks for Whitehearst (sp?) They aren't taking a 1st round quarterback this season.

To be precise, the Hawks swapped 2nd round picks with the Chargers in this year's draft, and will be giving them a 3rd round pick in 2011, so they only lost one pick for Whitehurst.