Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

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

    Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    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:

    Dear St. Louis Rams,

    If you are not 100% sure that Bradford is the answer to your problems, trade the pick.

    Even if it means getting less value than the talking heads think you should.

    Sincerely,

    Rob Rang
    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 quarterback you really want -- Texas' Colt McCoy -- 33rd overall.

    Who knows, maybe the short, remarkably accurate, gutty leader is the second coming of Drew Brees, after all.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

    Absolutely right. Bradford's grown on me as I've slowly grown to accept that he'll probably be the pick, but since he's never been a super crazy good, oh my god, definite number one kind of guy, I'm not sold on him being the pick, not when there's the possibility to trade down for even something that isn't a "king's ransom." We have more holes than picks, so let's get more picks and go after McCoy at 33. Worse comes to worse, we use some of our new ammo to trade with the Vikings, the most likely team to select McCoy, though I don't think they will. Not when they count on Favre coming back for another shot at a Super Bowl.

    So, in summary, trade the hell out of #1 for whatever we can get, and go after QB in round 2.
    I believe!:ram:

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

      The problem remains-the franchise does not get value out of the 7 hole. They won't get the best DT(s), they won't get the best QB, they will (likely) not get the best OT, CJ Spiller and Eric Berry, while talented, are wasteful picks considering the rather glaring needs elsewhere, and everybody else is a reach. Oh...and whoever is taken is getting paid $50 to $60 million.

      Yeah giving Bradford $80+ million might be a bad idea. Dealing the pick is a worse idea.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

        The Rams, in the past, have had trouble finding value at any spot in the first round.

        This team has so many needs, at this point I prefer the shot gun to the sniper rifle for targeting those needs. Perhaps some of them have a chance of being worth more than a 5th rounder in a couple years.
        Semper Fi!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

          Originally posted by Richbert88 View Post
          The Rams, in the past, have had trouble finding value at any spot in the first round.

          This team has so many needs, at this point I prefer the shot gun to the sniper rifle for targeting those needs. Perhaps some of them have a chance of being worth more than a 5th rounder in a couple years.
          Given our catastrophic inability to develop talent across the board, I'm not sure that giving up on the guys with the highest floor is worth one or two more cracks at the well of diminishing talent.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

            Well actually, this logic of trading the pick for LESS than market value is right in line with the FOs decisions up to this point, the way other teams are trading for players they need in this crazy year is just foolish to our 1-15 FO. I'm sure sitting on our hands will get it done.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

              I don't know how to respond to these types of articles other than to say, "depends on what is offered."

              Of course, the sportswriters will criticize the Rams for not trading the pick without even knowing what was offered.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

                Wow, if life was that simple then I think we'd all be millionaires.
                Always and Forever a fan of the St. Louis Rams

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

                  There just aren't a lot of trade opportunities. First of all Tampa is the only team that is likely to trade up to get Suh and I can't comprehend how a team pays that much money for a DT. I'm not even going with that scenario. So that leaves Bradford and teams looking for a QB:

                  Kansas City: Highly unlikely with the money they are paying their QB right now.

                  Seattle? Best trade option probably. They have two first round picks and the Rams could trade down to 6, get the 14th also and still get another 4th rounder. But do you trade within the division? I would. It's honestly, the only trade scenario I see as even possible unless the Rams move most of the benefit to 2011's draft.

                  Cleveland? In reality they have to give up their first and second this year and some picks next year. They are horrible so I don't see it happening.

                  Buffalo or Jacksonville? Same with Cleveland - just not enough to give us without it stretching out into next years 1st round pick. That's a hard sell for a franchise.

                  San Francisco is possible. They have 2 first rounders and if you throw in a 2nd this year and a 2nd next year, it could work. Not likely within the division and all that.

                  After that everyone is relatively happy with their QB situation or they are so far down it's irrelevant.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

                    Originally posted by PeoriaRam View Post
                    Given our catastrophic inability to develop talent across the board, I'm not sure that giving up on the guys with the highest floor is worth one or two more cracks at the well of diminishing talent.
                    Very well said

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

                      Originally posted by PeoriaRam View Post
                      The problem remains-the franchise does not get value out of the 7 hole. They won't get the best DT(s), they won't get the best QB, they will (likely) not get the best OT, CJ Spiller and Eric Berry, while talented, are wasteful picks considering the rather glaring needs elsewhere, and everybody else is a reach. Oh...and whoever is taken is getting paid $50 to $60 million.

                      Yeah giving Bradford $80+ million might be a bad idea. Dealing the pick is a worse idea.
                      Some mocks have Eric Berry and Jimmy Clausen sitting at the 7 spot I believe good value is there at 7.

                      Comment

                      Previous template Next

                      Related Topics

                      Collapse
                      • RamsSB99
                        This could be the most exciting Rams draft
                        by RamsSB99
                        With the new format being three days now it really benfits the Rams with the #1 overall pick in each round. The Rams have Bradford likely pegged at #1 overall (I still like Suh but Bradford is just as deserving). The first round intrigue will be if Cleveland wants to trade up and get him or not and if the Rams want to trade back into the first round for a player they like. If Cleveland does trade up it will make the rest of the draft interesting. What players will be at #7 and who would we take? If the trade happened we would likely add another second and third rounder as well. That would give us two high second rounders and two third rounders. That would give us four picks on the second day. Having the 1st pick in the second round makes it interesting and will keep us on the edge of our seats as players are falling day 1 of the draft there is a chance of us trading back into the first round for a player that falls (we tried it with J. Lau last year but he still fell to us). If we stand pat with the second rounder we will have a full day for trying to work out a deal for either more picks or more picks and a player. Say Cleveland don't trade with us in the first, passes on QB in the first, and Colt McCoy is on the board in the second round after we took Bradford in the first. Cleveland may decide to trade up to our spot to get McCoy possibly giving us one of their three third rounders as well as their second. The fourth round of the draft will start on day 3 with our selection. It again gives the Rams a full day to work out a deal after teams restack their draft board. It might be an ideal chance for us to trade our fourth round pick for a proven NFL player. Maybe even package our fourth round pick with a guy like Barron or Carriker in trade.
                        -04-17-2010, 12:43 PM
                      • 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
                      • rob6465
                        Trade value for #1 pick?
                        by rob6465
                        If Rams get #1 pick and decide to trade. How much can they get? The Chargers dealt the #1 pick (Eli Manning) to the Giants for two firsts (4th in 2004; 12th in 2005) and a second (in 2004).
                        -10-23-2011, 08:13 PM
                      • MauiRam
                        Would we trade up for Cherilus?
                        by MauiRam
                        If Gosder Cherilus were available late in round one, and Rams wanted him, what would we have to give up in order to trade back into the first round - say from the 24th pick on down. Would this year's 2nd and next year's 4th rd picks be enough?

                        24. Tennessee
                        25. Seattle
                        26. Jacksonville
                        27. San Diego
                        28. Dallas
                        29. San Francisco (from Indianapolis)
                        30. Green Bay
                        * New England (pick forfeited)
                        31. New York Giants

                        One more thing: How could you not want a behemoth named "Gosder" on your roster? With a name like that, you just know he'll become a household name (for all the right reasons I might add!).
                        -04-02-2008, 12:26 PM
                      • AvengerRam_old
                        Not a lot of trade partners for the #2 pick
                        by AvengerRam_old
                        There are a number of reasons why a trade down to acquire more choices might make sense for the Rams, but I'm not sure there are many potential trade partners.

                        The most likely reason a team would trade up to #2 is to acquire one of the top QBs in the draft (presuming Stafford and Bradford both declare). However, most of the teams at the top of the draft don't need QBs. Kansas City, sitting at #3, would probably take a QB, so they could be willing to give up a pick (maybe a 3rd rounder) to swap with the Rams. Of course, that requires a bluff on the Rams' part (convincing KC that the Rams won't simply pass on a QB).

                        After that, the next several teams are unlikely to draft a QB:

                        (4) Seattle - possible, as Hasselbeck is getting up there and coming off an injury, but would they make an intra-division trade?
                        (5) Cleveland - no (Brady Quinn)
                        (6) Cincinnati - doubtful (Carson Palmer)
                        (7) Oakland - no (JaMarcus Russell)
                        (8) Jacksonville - no (David Garrard)
                        (9) Green Bay - no (Aaron Rodgers, Brian Brohm)
                        (10) San Fran - yes (but, in division)

                        As for teams with multiple first rounders, there are only two. Detroit, which has the first and 20th, does not present as a trade partner. Even if the Rams wanted to trade for the 20th and 33rd picks (not a match on the value chart), I doubt that Detroit wants to pay the first and second picks in the draft. The Eagles will have two of the last 12 selections (depending on the playoffs), but that also would not be a good swap. Unless the Eagles are planning to get rid of McNabb, I doubt they'd trade three top picks (two 1s and 2 or 3, for example) to jump up and take a QB.

                        So, don't be surprised if the Rams stay at #2, whether they wish to or not.
                        -01-02-2009, 11:46 AM
                      Working...
                      X