Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

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

  • Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

    Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap
    Posted by Mike Florio on April 20, 2010 6:53 AM ET

    The draft is two days away, and there's growing talk in league circles that the Rams would be willing to trade out of the No. 1 overall selection for a package far less than the outdated draft trade chart would require.

    The thinking is that, if the Rams stay put, they'd feel compelled to take quarterback Sam Bradford with the No. 1 overall pick. But there's a concern that Bradford, who hasn't played much football since 2008, will end up on the bench for most if not all of 2010, while A.J. Feeley or Keith Null or someone else takes the snaps. (Then there's the whole "exploding shoulder" thing and the whole "spread offense" thing, which Bradford tried unconvincingly to explain away during a Monday interview on Jim Rome Is Burning.)

    Some believe that the Rams, who have won six games in three years, would prefer to pick a player who can step right in and play -- and if they can acquire more picks or, perhaps even better, extra players who can immediately contribute, it would be a bonus.

    Then there's the value that comes from stepping away from having to fork over the record contract that the first overall pick will receive, especially if it's a quarterback.

    So who would trade up? The primary candidates are the Redskins (No. 4), the Browns (No. 7), and possibly the Seahawks (No. 6).

    And for those of you who think that the Redskins wouldn't pick a quarterback in round one, the one quarterback they'd potentially pick is Bradford, whom offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan would begin to develop behind the scenes, potentially with the idea of coach Mike Shanahan engineering a torch-passing to Kyle after two or three seasons with Donovan McNabb at the helm.

    For the Rams, the biggest question is whether they'd be willing to take the heat for taking a package that would pale in comparison to the deals done in past years at the top of round one. Given that the Rams have suffered through far greater indignities of late relating to and arising from on-field performance (or lack thereof), they should be thrilled to be criticized for making a move that potentially will improve their current circumstances significantly.
    Think of it what you will.

  • #2
    Re: Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

    Doubtful but this is my freakin' nightmare.
    Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

      this is why they should take suh and McCoy in the second

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

        If our idea was that Bradford was not going to start the majority of the season then AJ Feely was a big mistake. If that's the case we will be 3-13, and Spags will be looking for a job.
        Last edited by Nick; -04-20-2010, 12:17 PM. Reason: Read the rules: No profanity, even if masked or blocked out

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

          My wish list for picks #1 & 33 SUH McCoy (perfect world senario)

          however if we trade #1's w/the browns 2010,2011 2nd & there 2nd 3rd #85 2010
          that would tempting (if they have a 2nd 2011?)
          giving us 1-7 2-33,38 3-65,85 in the first 3 rounds plus next years 2nd
          we could get several possible starters plus quality depth IMO

          What do you think doable or not
          per thread trade down on the cheap

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

            I think Mike Florio was bored so he wrote this article to pass the time.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

              We will have to wait and see I guess, but watching these other teams making moves while we sit on our hands and give reasons for not acting, its just frustrating. If Despags REALLY start the season with almost the exact same roster then I as a fan will be thoroughly disappointed. We have made crap ass moves so far this offseason in hopes of the draft changing our fortunes, and NOW we might HAND OVER the first pick WTF.
              This is the EXACT reasoning that makes us THE bottom feeders in the NFL, un-freakin-believable.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

                I can't wait until after our second pick, and all of this is overwith. Sheesh.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

                  Originally posted by dave626 View Post
                  We will have to wait and see I guess, but watching these other teams making moves while we sit on our hands and give reasons for not acting, its just frustrating. If Despags REALLY start the season with almost the exact same roster then I as a fan will be thoroughly disappointed. We have made crap ass moves so far this offseason in hopes of the draft changing our fortunes, and NOW we might HAND OVER the first pick WTF.
                  This is the EXACT reasoning that makes us THE bottom feeders in the NFL, un-freakin-believable.
                  Settle down, Beavis. Its just a typical Florio speculation article. Devaney has already said that its a load of crap.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Talk increases that Rams would trade down on the cheap

                    dave, we haven't made crap ass moves, we;ve added depth. Ive already pointed out in another thread that Devaney said that was total BS anyway...

                    Comment

                    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
                    • max
                      The Stud v. the Trade Down
                      by max
                      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.
                      -12-22-2009, 07:21 AM
                    • 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
                    • 1st & Goal
                      Is there a player you would trade up for?
                      by 1st & Goal
                      Has been alot of talk about the teams needs and who we should take with our 19th pick. Got me to thinking about what it would cost us to trade up and who we should target. Seems to be a common thread to get a run stopping linebacker (if we don't handle in FA) or a shut down corner. Looks like they are all gone by the time we would pick. :helmet:
                      -02-10-2005, 10:37 AM
                    Working...
                    X