Carriker to Skins?
by thisguy on Mar 11, 2010 5:14 PM CST
38 comments
I just saw this. I can't say that I'm opposed. Give him back to Haslett who was part of the Three Amigos who drafted Carriker out of position in the first place. My first instinct is to make it happen. My second is to make it happen. My third is to get Carriker out of here and get someone who plays in a position in which they have experience.
I really hope this isn't just rumor fodder. This could get us back to drafting Suh, maybe getting Jason Campbell in return for Carriker, and moving forward.
0 recs |
38 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
This would be an amazing senario
We really don’t have a spot for the injury prone carricker since it doesn’t look like they plan to use him at DE and we would get van’s man at the same time
Per fas et nefas - Latin translation="By Any Means Necessary"
JUST DRAFT STRADEGY - THATS ALL
I think the skins just want to see will we bite to see if we want Suh or Bradford. If we dont bite they’ll think we will draft Bradford , which is who they want. If we do bite they’ll assume we will draft Suh and then Bradford will fall to them. I say hold tight and see if they are willing to trade up and give us more picks.
I don't see why giving up Carriker locks the Rams into Suh
Its not like Carriker was a huge part of the D last year and requires replacing if he leaves. Was he not in danger of being cut at the end of training camp.
I don’t think losing him vastly changes the draft plan.
by Concrete Jungle on Mar 11, 2010 6:01 PM CST up reply actions
Spags and BD must think the guy can help cause with all the injuries and lack of being on the field , why hasn’t he already been shipped out.
by RamMan1 on Mar 11, 2010 7:25 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
It's a legitimate inquiry
The Redskins need help at DE in their 3-4 and Haslett is familiar with Carriker. Trading away Carriker doesn’t indicate the Rams draft preference. I think the sticking point is probably the value.
I have a hard time seeing the Redskins offering much for an oft-injured player. The Rams probably have a hard time giving up a 1st Rd pick with potential to contribute in their system for low value. I would imagine the best the Redskins are offering is a 4th Round selection since I can’t see them offering a 1st or 2nd Rd pick (they have no 3rd). I can’t see Jason Campbell being in the trade talk either just because of the value variance there and because that would indicate the Redskins draft position much earlier than they would like.
A player that could possibly be in the mix is Rocky McIntosh. Rocky has been fairly solid as a 4-3 weakside OLB but has an injury history. The Redskins only tendered him and made no real efforts at a long term deal. There might be some discontent there and when combined with possibly having to move him inside this year in the 3-4 make him expendable. Definately a situation to keep an eye on.
Yeh the redskins are not
smart enough to plan such a loose change conspiracy. We should dump him in a second, and take whatever they will offer. If we get another 3rd or higher we have struck gold! They mentioned nothing about Campbell.
A 3rd or higher for Carriker is not realistic
by CoachConnors on Mar 11, 2010 6:45 PM CST up reply actions
They don't even have a 3rd pick
The Skins are really limited with picks this year. That is why I assume they are going to package a player and seek a Rams pick rather than offer their own pick in exchange. I suggested McIntosh just because I think he could be had for one of our 5th Rd picks and Carriker, if they are really looking to move him out of fears he can’t play the inside.
Carter is the name being bandied about but I see two problems there. A) Carter has to agree to be traded to the Rams; and B) to have A happen the Rams would have to pay big money. I doubt the Rams pay big money to a guy in the latter half of his career. That is why I like McIntosh, he is young enough to still have some upside and if he falters we are not obligated to reach a long term deal with him.
I'd take McIntosh in a minute
I doubt they would give him up but it would be a win for both sides.
by Concrete Jungle on Mar 11, 2010 7:13 PM CST up reply actions
Looks like Carter (DE) wants out
Carter for Carriker would be a good move, straight up.
No Trade Clause
Do you know if he has offered to waive his no trade clause yet? Plus was curious if his option on his contract would kick in as well if traded? I only read briefly about his situation a week ago and was curious if any answers came out yet about that. He definately could upgrade our current DE situation and I have seen him mentioned as trade bait but I would have a hard time seeing a trade occur if we had to pay that option of around $3mill, which he might require in order to waive his no trade clause.
If we can get Campbell (solid cheap starter)...
…for Carriker? I say pull the trigger and draft Suh. You’re probably not going to have a better stopgap than this guy for the price tag, and you can go ahead and draft the franchise QB next season.
"I was just letting the shots fly. You know, I don't leave any bullets in the chamber."
"Everything negative- pressure, challenges- is all an opportunity for me to rise."
-Kobe Bryant
A mantra for all athletes.
How
many years do people want to lose? I’m not saying that this is a bad idea, its just we can’t just keep losing the price of our franchise keeps going down. This means that there becomes a better chance the Rams get moved. We haven;t won because we don’t have a QB. We need to start winning. You’d think we would be getting better, since we have had such early picks, but we keep getting worse. We need a Franchise QB soon.
by GreatestShowOnTurf on Mar 11, 2010 6:37 PM CST up reply actions
Personally, the team moving has no bearing on me.
I’m an LA guy. If you guys are real fans, you’ll follow them wherever they are.
Do you really think we’ll be out of the top 10 or even 5 next season as far as the draft order goes? Probably not right?
There’s a CBA Looming (or gasp No Football in 2011), and that new CBA will have almost certainly have a rookie cap. That means we can get our “franchise QB” next year for much less money and likely less question marks than Bradford would have this year.
Campbell would be a damn good stopgap.
"I was just letting the shots fly. You know, I don't leave any bullets in the chamber."
"Everything negative- pressure, challenges- is all an opportunity for me to rise."
-Kobe Bryant
A mantra for all athletes.
I want to lose
all the players who are not any good and make alot of monye. Bulger and Carriker, closely followed by Barron.
Its not like the Rams are just a QB away
They have been needing far more than just a QB for a long time now. The long series of drafts that have yielded very few players have really hurt this team.
Its gonna take just as long to fix it as it took to screw it up.
by Concrete Jungle on Mar 11, 2010 7:17 PM CST up reply actions
Is there a 'franchise QB' in the draft?
That shoulder could check out, but there is no guarantee that Bradford will hold up to NFL hits. Do we want to say the same about him as we do Carriker? ‘Wonder how he’d do w/more time on the field instead of on IR?’…
I don't get this Jason Campbell hate
He’d play as good, if not better, then any rookie we drafted this year.
The House of Spears reigns supreme
If he gets us Suh and holds the fort down for Luck, Locker, or Mallett next year...
…then I’ll love Jason Campbell. I hear Case Keenum might rise as well.
"I was just letting the shots fly. You know, I don't leave any bullets in the chamber."
"Everything negative- pressure, challenges- is all an opportunity for me to rise."
-Kobe Bryant
A mantra for all athletes.
by TrojanRam on Mar 11, 2010 8:03 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Now thats using your dipstick Jimmy!!
That is exactly what I was thinking. Well done! Even if it’s Carriker and a 4th or 5th, I would pull the trigger in a second. Get some wins this year to keep people watching and some butts in the seats so that we can pursue some high profile free agents next year. I would love to see Locker in a Rams uni next year. Let Washington and Seattle take their future QB’s and other than possibly Arizona or the Raiders we would have a shot at getting him. Must I remind everyone that only 17% of first round QB’s are successful?! Use the GB formula for Rodgers, thats how you make a good QB.
Why in the world does anyone think
the Redskins would give us Campbell for Carriker? They put a 1st and 3rd tender on him. I think Shanahan is planning to have him start this year to see how he does before deciding what to do with him.
When listing teams needing QBs, you left out Buffalo and Cleveland. There are quite a few teams who need a starting QB. Getting Locker next year would not be easy.
As to the statistics, it’s also true that over half the playoff QBs in the last three years were 1st round draft picks.
Carriker and a 4th or 5th for Campbell may
work depending on how much Haslett wants him. Obviously Campbell is not worth a first and a third. Shanahan has never been a QB guy anyway. He would start Collins if he had 3 running backs that he liked.
If we don’t take Bradford, one of those teams will most likely take a QB and at the rate we are going we won’t have to worry about who is picking before us. Besides if Cleveland picks up Delhomme and he plays well, they may be out of the market. I am more impressed with Locker, Mallett and maybe even Luck than I am with Bradford.
In years past you had a 6th rounder (Brady) Undrafted (Delhomme) Undrafted (Warner) Undrafted (Romo). And yes of course, most QB’s go in the first round but, for every Manning I can give you 5 Leafs or Harringtons.
I would love that trade!
It would help us out with our current lack of DE’s and it would solve the issue of where the Redskins should play Carter, seeing how they are thinking to move him to OLB a la Kampman! i’ll take that trade all day long.
Trade Carriker
Get whatever you can for him. With him we have a lot of defensive tackles. Trade him and draft Suh. That would be a lot easier to figure out who your starting DTs would be. Suh would be a lot better than anyone currently on the roster. It makes sense to me. I really don’t care what we get for him. I just really want Suh in a Rams jerzey next year. If we keep him though, it makes that less likely especially since we just signed Robbins.
Value
If you don’t get value for Carriker, keep him, and put him back into his natural position! At DE he can fill a need and hopefully live up to the potential that he had at Nebraska!
by kickasskeever on Mar 12, 2010 10:01 PM CST up reply actions
He is a 3-4 DE not the same thing
as playing DE in a 4-3. Why do people think he can make a seamless transition? He will have just as hard of a time as he did transitions from a 3-4 DE to a 4-3 DT.
As a DE in a 4-3, Carriker will not have to deal with the constant double teams and trap blocking that happens at DT. His run responsibilities become contain instead of trying to fight two people and tackle, and he can spend more time doing what we drafted him for, rushing the passer. He was drafted in the first round because in his last two seasons at Neb he had 16.5 sacks.
by kickasskeever on Mar 13, 2010 3:31 PM CST up reply actions
His college position was 4-3 DE
and scouting reports had him as a 4-3 DE; he has a quick first step. Leinehan tried to convert him to DT. I don’t know where you got your info from CaliRamsFan, but it’s not accurate.
by RamsFan1979 on Mar 13, 2010 10:35 PM CST up reply actions
In 2006 Nebraska
lined up in a 3-4 quite a bit. If I remember correctly, their strength was in that LB core and the 4 DE’s. I know that in 2005 they played a 4-3 the majority of the time.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Turf Show Times
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
