Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

    by Brian Stull
    While the smokescreen of who Billy Devaney is and isn't talking with continues to thicken, here's a plan to consider as the Rams weigh their options with the number one pick...
    Trading down not just once, but twice.
    It's more realistic than you might think and the Rams could still stay in the top four.
    Most people have assumed that Detroit is going to use the second overall pick to choose Russell Okung (T) out of Oklahoma State to shore up their offensive line and offer some protection for Mathew Stafford.
    Not a bad train of thought--but are the Lions good enough to pass on a Ndamukong Suh or Gerald McCoy to bolster their defense??
    If you're Tampa, you can't take that chance. If you want to guarantee that you receive one of the two top defensive tackles you have to trade up--and if you're going to trade, why not go to the top and ensure you have first choice.
    So, the Rams and Bucs work out a deal to swap 1st and 3rd overall picks with whatever other pick/player combo balances it out.
    You now have Washington at number four--rumored to be interested in Sam Bradford. Detroit and Tampa both have their young QBs of the future, so there is no concern there. However, even if the Rams sign a veteran free agent, can the Redskins be sure the Rams won't select Bradford at #3??
    No. So again, Washington needs to work a trade and the Rams can acquire additional picks/players while staying near the top of the draft.
    Now, you may say that's fine--but if Suh, McCoy, and Bradford are all off the board who's left for the Rams at #4 in this scenario??
    Lots of options here--talks are ongoing, but a long-term deal with Oshiomogho Atogwe has yet to be reached and Eric Berry is not just a top-rated safety, but a top player overall in the draft. CJ Spiller would be a heck of combo teaming with Steven Jackson.
    Dez Bryant and all of the wide receivers would be available. Jimmy Clausen, who does have some support at Rams Park, would be on the table.
    It comes back to answering this question--would the Rams be better with one player forecast to be a can't miss game-changer or by acquiring a handful of very good players that can address the many needs on the team.
    Looking forward to the scenarios that develop this week at the Combine, will keep you posted on what is--and isn't being talked about.


    Personally if this were possible I'd trade twice but after alll odds are against this...

  • #2
    Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

    btw I 'just listened to 101 rams redio and I just heard Adam Schefter absolutly gurantees Sam Bradford will be taken #1 overall because after his pro day workout everbody will be talking about him and have a huge buzz about Brad

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

      Most people have assumed that Detroit is going to use the second overall pick to choose Russell Okung (T) out of Oklahoma State to shore up their offensive line and offer some protection for Mathew Stafford.
      I have Okung mentioned a couple of times, but for the most part the mocks i have seen have the Lions taking McCoy
      @EssexRam_

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

        yeah i have heard the Lions are more interested in McCoy than Okung for whatever that's worth. personally I am completely against Bradford so I would love to draft Suh #1 but if the Rams were to trade, twice is more than nice.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

          stupid, trading once...ok. But why in all honesty would you not only trade away Suh (SUUUUUUH) but also pass up the only reason i see for trading away Suh, in Sam Bradford and a second rounder. If your not getting the best player in the draft, indeed one of the best dt prospects in at least 6 years, AT LEAST get your frekin QB. I understand the need for talent but don't let that cloud your judgement in realizing that those impact players at key positions can win you games, sell tickets, and give you a face for your franchise.

          If no deal can be reached with the Bucs for the 2nd rounc pick (at least) just draft Suh gawddoggit...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

            I'm not sure if this will ever happen, but it would be quite interesting.

            Let's say we rank Clausen as high as Bradford after the Combine/Pro Days. That means we wouldn't mind drafting either of them, and we would be happy with either one.

            So, we would put up a smokescreen and say we're very interested in Suh, with Bradford coming in a close second. If that provokes Tampa to trade with us, to guarantee them one of the two blue chip DT prospects, then what would we get from the trade?

            Probably their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd? Not too shabby.

            Then, now we're in the 3rd overall spot. We're now convinced that we're going to draft Bradford. Does Washington say, "Nuh uh. Bradford is our guy..." If they do, what would we get for that?

            According to the TVC, it would be equal if they offered their 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th.

            So now, we would be in position to draft Clausen, or even Derrick Morgan if we chose to.

            And these would be all of our picks:

            1st
            2nd
            2nd
            3rd
            3rd
            3rd
            4th
            4th
            5th
            5th
            5th
            6th
            7th
            7th


            That sounds great to me.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

              Originally posted by TheRammer View Post
              btw I 'just listened to 101 rams redio and I just heard Adam Schefter absolutly gurantees Sam Bradford will be taken #1 overall because after his pro day workout everbody will be talking about him and have a huge buzz about Brad
              So our management is susceptible to media buzz?

              Oye! I now understand why Detroit has sucked for the last decade. Let's put DeSpags in a sensory deprevation booth until April.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

                Originally posted by PeoriaRam View Post
                Let's put DeSpags in a sensory deprevation booth until April.
                How about they just roam the streets of Peoria? I am certain that would suffice.


                WHAT SAY YE?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

                  Originally posted by RockinRam View Post
                  I'm not sure if this will ever happen, but it would be quite interesting.

                  Let's say we rank Clausen as high as Bradford after the Combine/Pro Days. That means we wouldn't mind drafting either of them, and we would be happy with either one.

                  So, we would put up a smokescreen and say we're very interested in Suh, with Bradford coming in a close second. If that provokes Tampa to trade with us, to guarantee them one of the two blue chip DT prospects, then what would we get from the trade?

                  Probably their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd? Not too shabby.

                  Then, now we're in the 3rd overall spot. We're now convinced that we're going to draft Bradford. Does Washington say, "Nuh uh. Bradford is our guy..." If they do, what would we get for that?

                  According to the TVC, it would be equal if they offered their 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th.

                  So now, we would be in position to draft Clausen, or even Derrick Morgan if we chose to.

                  And these would be all of our picks:

                  1st
                  2nd
                  2nd
                  3rd
                  3rd
                  3rd
                  4th
                  4th
                  5th
                  5th
                  5th
                  6th
                  7th
                  7th


                  That sounds great to me.
                  Would sound great to me too until they realized they wouldn't be able to sign all of those picks under our allotted rookie salary pool. Which is staying whether the year is uncapped or not. Oi! Looks like we'd have to trade back up and give up some picks in some rounds.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

                    Originally posted by RAMarkable View Post
                    How about they just roam the streets of Peoria? I am certain that would suffice.


                    WHAT SAY YE?
                    I want them secluded, not dead.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

                      Trading down once is probably going to be challenging enough. Twice? Just doesn't seem likely at all. Sounds like Mr. Stull is going just a bit too far out of the box this time.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

                        Haha, I actually had a double trade down happening in my next mock draft. Except that I had us trading down to #3 with TB, then I had us trading with the Bills back to #9 so that they could pick up Bradford before the Redskins did. Then at number nine we could pick up arguably the best pass rusher in this draft, Derrick Morgan. We need a DE more than a DT anyways....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

                          Originally posted by Ramzee View Post
                          Would sound great to me too until they realized they wouldn't be able to sign all of those picks under our allotted rookie salary pool. Which is staying whether the year is uncapped or not. Oi! Looks like we'd have to trade back up and give up some picks in some rounds.

                          We could use the extra picks to trade for other players. We don't necessarily have to use them in the draft.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice

                            If Devaney and Spags are considering trading down for yawn inspiring Qbs and not planning on keeping who many believe to be the best defensive talent seen in generations, please have them leave and go work elsewhere.

                            If, Suh does pan out and become a perrenial all pro, especially in his 1st year,we all will be kicking ourselves by supporting yet another debacle.

                            Id would rather keep Suh, and see him fail, than trade him. His potential and upside is too much to pass up. And i would rather give him a shot than let him go.

                            Comment

                            Related Topics

                            Collapse

                            • 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, 09:16 AM
                            • 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, 10:58 AM
                            • sjacksonrules
                              ive been thinking
                              by sjacksonrules
                              I've been thinkin about this what if despags are just acting like they are interested in bradford just to get someone to trade up like say the redskins. Which I think the lions would draft a offensive lineman to protect their investment in qb. So that would leave us with suh or mccoy whoever the bucs didn't get. Just sounds like something they would do seeing as they are saying they would move down in the draft.
                              -03-22-2010, 11:12 PM
                            • Nick
                              Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade
                              by Nick
                              Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade
                              By Rob Rang
                              NFL Draft Scout
                              Posted on: April 20, 2010 8:52 am

                              As I reported a week ago and Cleveland Browns' general manager Tom Heckert publicly confirmed two days later, the St. Louis Rams are having internal discussions about trading out of the No. 1 pick.

                              With the several potential suitors (Cleveland, Washington, Seattle, Denver), it is possible that the Rams get the 3,000 "points" as required in the draft pick trade chart every team and media member refers to in these situations.

                              Far be it from me to offer the Rams, and specifically general manager Billy Devaney, advice on the situation, but I'm going to anyway:



                              Trading out of the No. 1 pick for less than its perceived value will likely generate some negative reaction from other teams and the media.

                              The reality is, the Rams, winners of only 6/48 games over the past three regular seasons have holes throughout their roster. The 2010 draft is as deep and talented as any we've seen in over a decade. The money saved on not utilizing the first overall pick would cover the extra players.

                              And for all of the talk about how difficult it is to trade out of the top pick, the last two teams that did so, received more than fair value for their courage -- though they weren't necessarily viewed as the consensus "winners" when making the deal on draft day.

                              The San Diego Chargers did it the unconventional way in 2004, selecting Eli Manning with the first pick and then shipping he to the Giants for the 4th overall selection, Philip Rivers, and three picks that the Chargers ultimately turned into Shawne Merriman and Nate Kaeding and veteran offensive tackle Roman Oben.

                              San Diego was involved in the last trade involving the No. 1 pick, as well, trading out of the top spot in 2001 to Atlanta. The Falcons got Michael Vick and the Chargers got the fifth pick, which they used on LaDainian Tomlison, as well as Atlanta's 3rd round pick in 2001 (Chargers selected CB Tay Cody), second round pick in 2002 (WR Reche Caldwell) and veteran receiver/returner Tim Dwight. Having not filled their quarterback need in the first round, the Chargers used their first pick of the second round on some guy named Brees.

                              There will be those that argue the Rams should simply ignore Bradford and use the top pick on their highest rated player, almost surely Ndamukong Suh or Gerald McCoy.

                              Unfortunately for St. Louis, having spent high first round selections on the defensive line in 2007 (Adam Carriker) and 2008 (Chris Long) likely precludes the team from doing so.

                              My admittedly two-cent advice? Capitalize on the best deal you can get and trade out. Let someone else gamble on Sam Bradford's shoulder. Fill other areas of concern with the first round pick(s). And take the...
                              -04-20-2010, 03:31 PM
                            • 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, 02:46 PM
                            Working...
                            X