Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32
  1. #16
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    FIRING SCHOTTY
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,716
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    Quote Originally Posted by RamsFan16
    We are in dier need of a great Tightend and Manu and Cleeland aren't that. Manu is horrible.
    Cam Cleeland isn't even on the team.

    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    The backhanded compliments about Austin Davis are amusing.

  2. #17
    Bar-bq's Avatar
    Bar-bq is offline Pro Bowl Ram
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,930
    Rep Power
    94

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    My Opinion, as im still new to the boards, probably won't be validated among you regulars, (one day ill get there) but it would be worth the trade for Hawk, even at No.5. Maybe, we trade a second from next year to land the guy. The Bay are'nt going anywhere next year, so you can predict a high second and one in the low 20's(10-6, i hope for the Rams.) They'd still be in a good spot at 11 to make a move back again or take a guy like Ngata.

  3. #18
    RamsFan16's Avatar
    RamsFan16 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Age
    25
    Posts
    5,072
    Rep Power
    39

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    Cam Cleeland isn't even on the team.
    Yea. But he was. I was saying that they weren't those guys and that we need a new guy.
    RamsFan16

  4. #19
    majorram's Avatar
    majorram is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    London surrey
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,421
    Rep Power
    20

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel
    I would give up the #11 plus a second round plus a #5 or #6 for hawk and not hesitate for a second. Tight end is a luxery item. An impact linebacker is a necessity.

    Bring me the HEad of the Hawk

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel
    I'm with GC, to me this guy is special, I say TRADE TRADE!!!he would man our LB's for years....


    steve:clanram:
    "The breakfast Club"

  5. #20
    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: Trading up for Hawk

    How can we be in DIRE NEED of a tight end? Tell me exactly what difference you think it is going to make that it constitutes a DIRE NEED. Manu had about 20 balls total thrown to him last year. Furthermore, what we are in DIRE NEED of is DEFENSE and the ability to tackle, cover and get to the qb. Would davis be a great guy to have on the team? Sure. Is he a big upgrade over manu? Sure. But DIRE NEED? Come on, lets deal with reality here. If we can get an impact player on defense, that can address our real need. We have enough talent to score plenty of points on offense. It would always be nice to have more talent on offense, but one more weapon on offense will not move the needle in the same way that an impact player can on defense, coupled with the defensive upgrades we have already signed.

    Ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  6. #21
    ramstiles's Avatar
    ramstiles is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    surrey, england,
    Age
    60
    Posts
    765
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    If we traded up for a player of hawks ability each year think of the team we would have after 5 or 6 years and think of the 2nd and 3rd rounders we have picked that are memorable

  7. #22
    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: Trading up for Hawk

    How can anyone say manu is "HORRIBLE" when he had a grand total of 20 balls thrown to him all last year. Is he great? Of course not. How good or bad is he? Who knows until you give him a real chance.

    None of this is to say that vernon davis isnt a terrific prospect of a big big upgrade over manu. My point is that we have plenty of offense and we need major help on the defensive side of the ball. If davis falls to us at 11 and linehan wants him, so be it. Giving up a mid round pick is suspect but defensible to me to get up and get him. Giving up a day one pick to get an offensive player is impossible for me given our needs on defense.

    Ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  8. #23
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    FIRING SCHOTTY
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,716
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel
    How can we be in DIRE NEED of a tight end? Tell me exactly what difference you think it is going to make that it constitutes a DIRE NEED. Manu had about 20 balls total thrown to him last year. Furthermore, what we are in DIRE NEED of is DEFENSE and the ability to tackle, cover and get to the qb. Would davis be a great guy to have on the team? Sure. Is he a big upgrade over manu? Sure. But DIRE NEED? Come on, lets deal with reality here. If we can get an impact player on defense, that can address our real need. We have enough talent to score plenty of points on offense. It would always be nice to have more talent on offense, but one more weapon on offense will not move the needle in the same way that an impact player can on defense, coupled with the defensive upgrades we have already signed.

    Ramming speed to all

    general counsel
    We are in dire need because we only have 1 TE and he doesn't even want to come in and workout. Using Manu's 20 balls from last year won't fly because this is a new offense. If we still had Martz and we knew he wasn't going to use the TE then ok. Linehan likes the TE and will use him more than Martz (it's impossible to use him less than Martz) but you see what I mean.

    The TE has become more important in the past few years, look at Gonzalez, Gates, Heap, Crumpler, Cooley, McMichael. Davis is special, now I'm not sure if I want him using our first pick but we are still in dire need of a quality TE along with LB and defense in general, so I don't see it as that bad if we take Davis.

    We did have a lot of stalled drives in the red zone last year where Davis could really help us.

    Hawk or Davis is a win win situation.
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    The backhanded compliments about Austin Davis are amusing.

  9. #24
    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: Trading up for Hawk

    We can agree to disagree on this. We stall in the red zone because our offensive line was terrible, not because we lacked weapons.

    We "need" a tight end in the sense that we could use an upgrade and i have never disagreed with that. My point is that DIRE NEED is defined in the context of overall improvement of our team. That dire need is on the defensive side of the ball.

    The point of the 20 balls to manu is that he hasnt had a chance to prove if he can play.

    Bottom line, you dont need to have a great player at every position on the field, especially when we have all the offensive weapons we already have. We are desparate on defense because we have not been able to tackle, cover or pressure at all.

    By the way, the fact that manu hasnt participated in workouts improves your argument and i acknowledge that. I think we do need a tight end, that doesnt mean we need to use the 11th pick to get one. If people truly think manu is HORRIBLE, then we should be able to get one in the second or third round who would also be an upgrade. I never said we shouldnt look for a tight end at all, i am only suggesting that we dont have a DIRE NEED compared to the overall team needs of the rams. The overall team need is to improve the defense, not the tight end position.

    Lastly, my argument is based on the concept of not trading up with a first day pick to get davis. In my prior post, i said i could live with taking him if he is there at 11or adding a middle round pick if he drops.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  10. #25
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    FIRING SCHOTTY
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,716
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    We can agree to disagree GC. I'm not sold on Manu. I have seen him short arm many balls which indicates to me that he's soft. He has made some nice catches, but also dropped some he shouldn't. I agree part of our problem with red zone offense was the line but also we had no TE threat which hurt us as well. It remains to be seen if Manu is the guy, but him not showing up to workout indicates to me that he isn't ready or might never be the guy.

    If I was Manu and knew that I was hardly used with Martz, and now Linehan comes in and says I love to use the TE, I would be busting my a*s to impress him and make myself better. Manu not coming in to workout speaks volumes about him.
    Last edited by ramsbruce; -04-11-2006 at 02:22 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    The backhanded compliments about Austin Davis are amusing.

  11. #26
    Goldenfleece's Avatar
    Goldenfleece is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,586
    Rep Power
    60

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    Quote Originally Posted by ramstiles
    If we traded up for a player of hawks ability each year think of the team we would have after 5 or 6 years and think of the 2nd and 3rd rounders we have picked that are memorable
    Well, if we were able to trade up that high year in and year out, I'd think we had a problem. Just by way of example, if we finished fourth in the league, our entire draft wouldn't be worth the 12th pick on the draft value charts, much less the 5th. If the team starts making the playoffs again, we probably won't be positioned this close to the top for a while, so I think we should make the most of it.

    As for Davis, I think he's a phenomenal athlete, and I'd hate to see him playing for the *****, but the tight end is not a dire need. The only teams that have that kind of need at TE are the ones that lack receiving threats in general, and trading up to #5 means only getting two day 1 picks.

    If we take Davis, who are we going to start at the third linebacker spot? If we give up a 2nd rounder to move up, we're looking at Nande, McIntosh, Alston, and Havner as the likely third round OLB choices. Or Mark Anderson could be converted from DE. Some of these guys could be very good in the league one of these days, but I don't really want them starting on opening day. To me, the Hawk deal is more appealing. There's even the chance a guy like Byrd, Fasano, or Klopfenstein could slip into the third--certainly much higher probability than any one of the top 5 OLBs being there. Even if they aren't available, guys like Antonio Gates and Marcus Pollard were UDFAs; they never even played college football. I'd be more comfortable going into next year with Hawk and virtually any TE in the draft over Davis and any of the guys I see being available from the third on down at SLB.

    Alternatively, I'm open to the idea of trading down if we decide not to trade up and no elite players are available at 11.
    Last edited by Goldenfleece; -04-11-2006 at 01:40 PM.

  12. #27
    r8rh8rmike's Avatar
    r8rh8rmike is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    29 Palms, Ca.
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,694
    Rep Power
    129

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel
    It would always be nice to have more talent on offense, but one more weapon on offense will not move the needle in the same way that an impact player can on defense, coupled with the defensive upgrades we have already signed.
    I don't know how anyone could argue with this, especially after what we all had to suffer through on the defensive side of the ball last year. GC hit the nail on the head, a playmaker on offense will not have the same measurable impact as a playmaker on defense.

  13. #28
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    32
    Posts
    19,665
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    If Davis is the BPA at 11, I'd take him in a heartbeat. But if we're going to sacrificie picks to trade up, it HAS to be on defense by trading up for either Hawk or Huff.
    ClanRam ModCast: Episode Four
    Rams Discussion Right at Your Fingertips!



  14. #29
    ramstiles's Avatar
    ramstiles is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    surrey, england,
    Age
    60
    Posts
    765
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenfleece
    Well, if we were able to trade up that high year in and year out, I'd think we had a problem. Just by way of example, if we finished fourth in the league, our entire draft wouldn't be worth the 12th pick on the draft value charts, much less the 5th. If the team starts making the playoffs again, we probably won't be positioned this close to the top for a while, so I think we should make the most of it.
    I didnt say move up to the 5 spot every year I just stated we moved up each year to get a better player you move up to get the player you want


    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenfleece
    Alternatively, I'm open to the idea of trading down if we decide not to trade up and no elite players are available at 11.
    you trade down to get lesser players
    but more of them

    just my view

  15. #30
    ramsbruce's Avatar
    ramsbruce is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    FIRING SCHOTTY
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,716
    Rep Power
    52

    Re: Trading up for Hawk

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick
    If Davis is the BPA at 11, I'd take him in a heartbeat. But if we're going to sacrificie picks to trade up, it HAS to be on defense by trading up for either Hawk or Huff.
    I have to agree. I'm not sure I want to trade up for anyone because we have so many needs, but if we got Hawk or Huff, I would be satisfied. Trading up for Davis I'm not to sold on but he still would be an incredible player for us and we are in serious need of a quality TE. Hopefully one of or all of them (wishful thinking at best) fall to 11.
    Quote Originally Posted by ramsbruce
    The backhanded compliments about Austin Davis are amusing.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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
  •