Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

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

  • Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

    by Daniel Wolf Written on April 05, 2010 l
    Is Campbell a smarter choice as the Rams' starting QB than Bradford?

    Happy Jason Campbell Day to everyone, because that's going to be the biggest news and speculation over the next few days and weeks leading up to a deal getting done.

    Ideally a trade will happen before the April 22 draft day, so the Redskins can get a usable draft pick in exchange immediately.

    Already projected at a value of around a fourth-round pick by National Football Post, Campbell is only 28 years old and has played solid football in his career, accumulating a career quarterback rating of an 82.

    One team who should really consider picking up Campbell is the St. Louis Rams.

    According to almost every single mock draft that is on the Internet, the Rams will pick Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford.

    At this point, why waste a No. 1 overall pick on a quarterback when the Rams can give up a fourth-rounder for a young and experienced starter in Campbell?

    Especially since Campbell's athletic abilities may translate very well inside of a dome on a on the Rams' super fast turf and he will be way cheaper than giving Bradford $100 million dollars (an exaggeration).

    Many have been mentioning that Campbell is getting a raw deal in Washington for no reason whatsoever and one would guess that Campbell will be highly motivated to prove his critics wrong no matter what teams lands him.

    Which is another reason why the Rams should acquire him instead of paying Bradford a ton of money.

    If Campbell is a Ram before the draft, then they will most likely make a move to pick Nebraska defensive lineman Ndamukong Suh and then every single mock draft will have to go through a makeover.

  • #2
    Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

    I agree, but I don't see us getting Campbell really realistic at this point.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

      Originally posted by thickandthin View Post
      I agree, but I don't see us getting Campbell really realistic at this point.
      No way of knowing for sure if the Rams have any interest in Jason. The most likely scenario (assuming the Rams drafted Suh with their first pick), would be to wait until draft day, and see if Colt McCoy dropped to them in rd 2. If not, then try and work out a deal for J.C.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

        Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

        Is it because we want to continue our losing ways?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

          campbell for a 4th..ill take that. We would probably be getting a depth player in the 4th so gettin campbell, who would be a starter would be a GREAT deal!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

            holding the ball and thinking = sack rate, 9.9% with Skins

            sack rate with Rams while learning new playbook? dang ???
            All bets are Goff

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

              I don't get the excitement over Campbell. He wasn't that good in Washington, and he had better receivers, a good running back and a legitimate line. We only have a good back...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

                I can see at as an option, and maybe even a smart move. Jason has improved year by year, and could very well flourish in the dome. But there are more if's in the campbell question than in the Bradford question. Realistically, unless Washington is willing to take a 5th rounder for him, I'm not interested.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

                  This is why i don't think Campbell will be a Ram.

                  If the Redskins knew that we were interested they would have gone out of their way to make the trade, likely for a 5th or even a 6th, because by us getting Campbell it means that we pick Suh, which means that Bradford falls to #4. So it basically becomes them trading Campbell for a 6th rounder and Bradford.

                  The fact that they made the trade for McNabb means to me that the Rams were not interested in getting Campbell and that Bradford appears to be the choice for the Rams.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

                    Originally posted by Mooselini View Post
                    I don't get the excitement over Campbell. He wasn't that good in Washington, and he had better receivers, a good running back and a legitimate line. We only have a good back...
                    ummmmmmm what can I say...? oh yeah FALSE. We have a much better line than the skins, IDK why everyone thinks that our line sucks... well news flash to everyone.. our line does not suck. they don't have better recievers "per-say" just experienced we have good recievers just not a TE like Cooley.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

                      And he is from San Diego and went to Hoover High school. One question I have, who is the better fit into our offense, Sam Bradford or Jason Cambell

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

                        Originally posted by Head Slap View Post
                        holding the ball and thinking = sack rate, 9.9% with Skins

                        sack rate with Rams while learning new playbook? dang ???
                        really? did you forget to mention that the redskins had one of the worst o-lines in the history of the nfl last year, even worse than ours a couple of years ago?

                        let's face it, campbell put up solid, not great numbers in washington. he also didn't get much help from the organization. new coach, o-coordinator, system to learn every year, a laughable o-line, an aging running game and no legitimate WIDE OUTS. mind you, cooley and moss are quality players, but cooley is a tight end and moss is a slot-quality guy. we're talking about an organization that has done just about everything wrong over the last 5 years despite throwing money around in record numbers, so it becomes ridiculous to judge him so harshly despite playing solid football in such a bad situation.

                        still, even if we manage to trade for the guy we need to pick up a guy like colt mccoy or a mid-round qb we like, so we have another option going forward. i believe campbell will be a free agent after this season, assuming all hell doesn't break loose regarding the new cba.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

                          Id take Cambell AND Haynesworth, while still maintaining our first 2 picks maybe even our first 3.

                          Cambell is a starter at QB plain and simple, for our offense he would suffice, we dont need a superman at QB for what we do AND we all know it. Bradford has nice qualities no doubt, but here is a cheaper, more experienced, 1rst round pick that has done nothing but improve in every system hes had to learn.
                          Haynesworth would be the best DT we've had since Ive been a fan of the Rams 95. Adding these 2 pieces could help turn us around, and use the 2 or 3 top picks to ugrade other positions. or get Suh too and have the best D line in football.

                          I think you could work the 2 players together in a trade to us for Carriker a 4rth and 5th and if we are lucky, they need a LT too (Barron), at least thats where I would start. Fat Alberts contract is manageable (ramsgab page) Washington has paid most of the crap they signed him up for.

                          "But Cambell wont win us a Super bowl", We cant even compete!!! We need improvement EVERYWHERE. Cambell is a clear upgrade to our current situation ,and to dismiss that statement just means you dont watch enough football, and it allows flexibility to address the MANY other holes we have. Its a cost effective upgrade and he would be good enough for what we do, and could be quite successful at it, with SJ runnning. For all the people complaining about too many holes to fill even with the draft, and/or our lack of FA movement this could help us get competitive quicker without sacrificing our youth movement.If 17 bombs then at least we have a team built already for next years franchise QB.

                          Haynsworth flat dominates in a 4-3, when hes motivated and Spags can make that happen. Hes a penetrator Spags loves those, and would give us more than even Suh would in 2010 most likely, because of the rookie season adjustment. Id like to see first hand who would have better numbers, playing side by side.

                          Then the first 2 or 3 picks we are'nt locked in to a position and are free to take the BPA or however they work their board.
                          I hope we do it, I like Bradford but not at the expense of the overall success of the team. OOhh,yeah I said it!


                          GO RAMS!!!
                          Last edited by dave626; -04-06-2010, 03:11 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

                            Do not make any trades with Shanahan. He out smarted us once before. (Jay Cutler/Tye Hill scenario)
                            sigpic :ram::helmet:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Why the St. Louis Rams Should Trade for Jason Campbell

                              Originally posted by hill_Bartell=Probowl View Post
                              And he is from San Diego and went to Hoover High school. One question I have, who is the better fit into our offense, Sam Bradford or Jason Cambell
                              In this one I would rather go with the unknown (Bradford). Campbell has a history in the NFL and it isn't very impressive. Again, I say roll the dice and go with the kid.
                              sigpic :ram::helmet:

                              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, 08:16 AM
                              • Guest's Avatar
                                Rams Could Trade Down Not Once, But Twice
                                by Guest
                                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...
                                -02-24-2010, 12:16 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, 02:31 PM
                              • Action_Jackson
                                Trade with Redskins
                                by Action_Jackson
                                What do you think the Rams would need to give up to get Jason Campbell and Albert Haynesworth from the Redskins?

                                And

                                Does anyone think this is a possibility of this happening?
                                -04-06-2010, 03:21 PM
                              • 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
                              Working...
                              X