Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Stud v. the Trade Down

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    The Stud v. the Trade Down

    What I have been hearing a lot, including Jim Thomas on Bernie's radio show, is the Rams will either take Suh, or trade down if someone offers them a great deal.

    The question I have is how often does the trade down work. It didn't work so well for Bill Parcells when he trade away the pick to the Rams for Pace. But it did work well for the Chargers when they trade Eli Manning the #1, for Philip Rivers and several other picks including Merriman.

    I think it's usually better to keep the pick if it's a super stud like Pace, or Earl Campbell, or John Elway.

    So do we think Suh is that super stud guy? If so we should not be taking offers. I mean, they would have to be ridiculous. I would want at least 3 additional #1's. And that ain't happening.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

    Stud guy. Difference maker.

    Go Cards and whiners. Just play them close Rams but for the love of everything Ram holy......lose.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

      I don't think JT or Bernie really knows anything. They are just speculating as we are.

      That said, I think that Suh is, and will continue to be, viewed as the clear No. 1 pick in this draft. For the Rams to give up an opportunity (assuming they continue to hold the first pick) to take a guy like him, some team would have to make an overwhelming offer. I don't expect that to happen.

      Frankly, if the rules allow it, I'd be fine with the Rams signing Suh in March.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

        Originally posted by AvengerRam View Post
        I don't think JT or Bernie really knows anything. They are just speculating as we are.

        That said, I think that Suh is, and will continue to be, viewed as the clear No. 1 pick in this draft. For the Rams to give up an opportunity (assuming they continue to hold the first pick) to take a guy like him, some team would have to make an overwhelming offer. I don't expect that to happen.

        Frankly, if the rules allow it, I'd be fine with the Rams signing Suh in March.
        March!?!?!? January for all I Care

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

          If we could get something like what the Chargers got in trading their #1 pick for the Giants' #4 pick and a first rounder the next year I would do that in a heartbeat. The problem is that I don't think anybody would do that unless McCoy was also off the board.

          My dream:
          Tampa Bay wins another game or two and picks around 5. Suh, McCoy, Berry, and Okung are the first four picks. Tampa Bay doesn't like their available draft options so they trade their first and both seconds for Suh. Rams pick Bradford, and have three early second rounders to attempt to fill some of their many wholes. Yay!
          Last edited by Rawr; -12-22-2009, 09:32 AM.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

            I think it depends on how rare the top tier prospects are in a given draft. If the Rams owned the first pick in last years draft, I'd say absolutely trade down for more picks. There wasn't that once-in-a-decade DT like Suh. I'd be very hesitant to pass on someone like that, when is such a clear cut best player.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

              I like everything I hear about Suh and I am hoping that he is our selection. But, I wonder if one player can really make that big of a difference. I had high hopes for Carriker when he came in and again I had high hopes when Long was selected. I realize that Carriker has been injured, but my point is when he did play there wasn't a dramatic improvement in our pass rush or our ability to stop the run. Will the same be true with Suh?

              He is being referred to as the best DT to come along in a decade. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what they said about Dorsey last year? I'm not hearing that about Dorsey anymore, is anybody else?

              I hope I'm wrong because we really need our defensive front four to start gettng penetration and stop the run if we ever want to get to the next level. If Suh is capable of making a difference in those regards, I wouldn't want to trade the pick unless it was a very attractve deal. It all starts on the line.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

                Remembering Pickett, Lewis, Kennedy, and Carriker doesn't make me feel so great about picking a DT. Spags I believe had a 2nd and a 4th rounder playing for him at DT last year. Umenyiora and Tuck were 3rd rounders. Just sayin...

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

                  Don't include Pickett. Pickett got a bad rap in STL. He played well, but DLew and Arch didn't. Pickett was a mistake to let go....the others weren't.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

                    Originally posted by Rawr View Post
                    Remembering Pickett, Lewis, Kennedy, and Carriker doesn't make me feel so great about picking a DT. Spags I believe had a 2nd and a 4th rounder playing for him at DT last year. Umenyiora and Tuck were 3rd rounders. Just sayin...
                    I think Pickett was a keeper. Linewho and Haslett missed the boat when they let him go. He's playing good football right now and he wasn't the problem when he was a Ram.

                    I think the book is still out on Carriker. He's been injured too much to make any final conclusions on him. It also depends on who is on the line with you.

                    Lewis and Kennedy are head scratchers. From what I hear they aren't doing too bad. Kennedy was played out of position here. I'm not sure what the deal was with Lewis (aka "the nutcracker").

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

                      Originally posted by viper View Post
                      He is being referred to as the best DT to come along in a decade. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what they said about Dorsey last year? I'm not hearing that about Dorsey anymore, is anybody else?

                      Actually Dorsey was drafted 2 years ago but you have a valid question.

                      From what I have been able to ascertain he is playing out of his normal position as a DE in a 3 - 4 defense.

                      Therefore it is difficult to grade his play in that he is much better suited for the under tackle role in a 4 - 3.

                      I'm not sure that Suh would be all that successful as a DE in a 3 man front either.

                      WHAT SAY YE?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

                        dorsey would be very good in a 4-3 defense..i don't know what the chiefs are doing, i would expect them to trade him this offseason.

                        as far as the original question, if we can find an excellent deal with multiple picks (including a high first) it might be worth it, but i don't think anything overwhelming will be offered. regardless, i would lean towards taking suh.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

                          Even if reports start to surface that Suh has congenital heart murmurs, bones spurs in his feet, arthritic knees, has a IQ or whatever the NFL test is -- score of 2, runs a 23.2sec 40 yard dash, and benches 95lbs for 6 reps, we have to take him.

                          His on the field performance is what matters, and any extraneous things that may surface need to be ignored.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

                            Keep dreaming!!! Being both Bucs n Neb fan over 20 years I wouldn't trade up 1 spot giving more than 1st n top 2nd round pick! Rams suck more n need more than Suh!!!!!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: The Stud v. the Trade Down

                              Originally posted by Rawr View Post
                              Remembering Pickett, Lewis, Kennedy, and Carriker doesn't make me feel so great about picking a DT.
                              Why is that? Not only were those picks made by different regimes, but Suh is his own person whose eventual success or failure isn't going to be determined by the past.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse
                              • sntlouisrams
                                Alternate trade option
                                by sntlouisrams
                                Say for arguments sake the rams like G.McCoy ahead of Suh there isnt apparantly alot between them as both are nfl ready dt's (for the record i think suh is better and yes I have seen his stats and understand that argumeny)

                                The rams convince Tampa that they want suh and get trade down with tampa to 3rd and pick up a 2nd and 4th round for arguments sake.

                                The rams also convince washington that we want bradford, (as we sit ahead of washington they have to trade up to 2nd to get him) meaning they trade with detroit to get in and steal him from us as it were.

                                However we sit pretty at 3rd having traded down and land G.McCoy and have an extra draft picks in the later rounds. I READ this elsewhere and paraphrasing it, to see what people would think. Also this move works if we want clausen as well.
                                -02-16-2010, 09:58 AM
                              • AvengerRam_old
                                If the Rams trade the first pick, it will go down like this...
                                by AvengerRam_old
                                I don't know if the Rams will trade the first pick. While they may wish to, there's no guarantee that any team will offer fair trade value.

                                That said, if it does happens, there are two things I am confident about:

                                1. It won't happen before draft day; and

                                2. We'll know its coming before draft day.

                                Here's what I'm thinking. If the Rams want Ndamukong Suh, they will almost certainly sign him before draft day. That is one very big advantage of having the first pick, after all, as you can sign your choice in advance and eliminate any concern over a holdout.

                                If draft day arrives and the Rams have not signed anyone, then I think that will be a clear sign that a trade is on the table. The way I see it, the Rams are most likely to entertain a trade if they wish to select Sam Bradford as their first pick. That stated, I don't think the Rams can make the trade in advance for that purpose. Here's why:

                                Detroit, who holds the No. 2 pick, is an unlikely trade partner. In all likelihood, they will simply take Gerald McCoy, rather than giving up draft picks to get Suh.

                                Tampa, who holds the No. 3 pick, is a likely trade partner. They, in all likelihood, covet a player like Suh (who could become their next Warren Sapp, without the pot cloud over his head), and have an extra second round pick to offer as part of a trade.

                                The Rams, however, can't afford to make a pre-draft trade with the Bucs. The reason: Washington. There are reports that Washington is very interested in Bradford, and I have little doubt that Dan Snyder would trade up to No. 2 if he thinks the Rams are planning to take Bradford at No. 3.

                                So, if draft day arrives and the Rams have not made a trade or signed a player, it is likely that the reason would be that Rams have worked out a trade with Tampa that is contingent on Bradford still being on the board at No. 3 (i.e. the Redskins don't trade up in anticipation of a St. Louis/Tampa deal). If he's not, the Rams keep either keep Suh (but, of course, lose the opportunity to sign him in advance), or complete the trade and select someone else at No. 3 (G.McCoy, J.Clausen, D.Bryant, C.J.Spiller, E.Berry are all possibilities under that scenario).

                                Of course, there is another possibility. Washington could work out a trade with Detriot before the draft, and thereby force the Rams to either select Bradford at No. 1 or let him go to the Skins. Such a move, however, would be risky for the Redskins, because, assuming the Rams "fall in love" with Bradford in the next two months, they might just take him at No. 1.

                                In the end, there could be some drama on draft night....
                                -02-09-2010, 08:16 AM
                              • Nick
                                Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap
                                by Nick
                                Think of it what you will....
                                -04-20-2010, 10:30 AM
                              • Draftniksince1985
                                3-way trade for Suh fans
                                by Draftniksince1985
                                Rams Get
                                #2 overall (Suh), #37 overall (from WAS)

                                Lions Get
                                #4 overall (Okung), #99 & #170 (Rams 4th+6th), WAS*2011 2nd Round Pick

                                Redskins Get
                                #1 overall (Bradford)

                                Rams get best player in the draft, pay less and add an high second round pick.

                                Lions are rumored to be looking to trade down to save money and are likely concidering picking an OT to protect Stafford even at #2. Their reward for moving down comes mostly next year with what should be an early second round pick. Don't forget that the #2 pick has little trade value if the rams select Bradford at #1.

                                WAS, who has historically been willing to spend the money for what they want, get their franchise QB without paying too steeply for trading up.
                                -03-27-2010, 01:46 PM
                              • HUbison
                                Any trade rumor at this point is pure balderdash!
                                by HUbison
                                No trade makes sense at this point.

                                Think it through guys. No combine. No pro days. No interviews. No workouts. No medicals.

                                Why would professional personnel folks in the NFL be talking trade right now when they have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what any prospect is or is not worth?

                                The Rams are NOT talking to any team about trades right now. Not the bucs, not the skins, not the anybody's!

                                Well, how do you know, HUb?

                                Because it would make ZERO sense to trade away picks (and the prospects associated with them) they know absolutely nothing about! These guys didn't get where they are by being stupid!
                                -02-22-2010, 12:18 PM
                              Working...
                              X