How about this possibility?
by GreatestShowOnTurf on Mar 8, 2010 3:59 PM CST
21 comments
The Rams will need a big time target for there franchise quarterback (Sam Bradford) next year. The Rams have the 1st pick of the second round and if Gresham falls, the Rams could reunite Bradford and Gresham. But, I would rather have a proven talent then a guy with upside. So how about this possibility: The Rams trade their 2nd Round pick and their 5th round pick to the Saints for their 1st Round pick and their 5th round pick. We would move up 1 pick and they would move up 30 picks in the 5th round. We already have the Eagles 5th rounder because we traded Will Witherspoon to them. Now with the 32nd pick of the first round the Rams can give that pick up to Denver for Brandon Marshall.
<!--Session data-->
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The question is
How much better would the Rams be with Marshall? Do they improve three games? Four Games? Five games? Now they’re 6-10. Still no playoffs in sight.
Assuming the Rams don’t trade their 1st round pick, I can’t see them picking Bradford. First picks overall should be special. Our last one was Orlando Pace. I wouldn’t spend it on a QB whom you hope will be healthy.
Of course if we do draft a QB, we still need someone to block for him and someone on defense to stop the other team and take the ball away.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. -- George Santayana (1863-1952)
Didn't
we just use the 2nd overall pick last year for a LT, Jason Smith?
by GreatestShowOnTurf on Mar 8, 2010 4:29 PM CST up reply actions
I think most people will like Marshall on the team,
the only question is would Denver give him up for that pick?
Only five players have averaged 25 and 10 in their playoff careers. One of them, Dirk Nowitzki.
Denver didn't say they would take
just any first round pick. No one knows what they are really looking for. Getting Marshall would help the offense, but I’m not sure we should make that move. One of the concerns is that I believe he only has one more year on his contract, then he is going to want big bucks. Are you ready to make him the highest paid guy on the team?
Wouldn't
he be the 2nd best player on our team? Great players make great money. He is 1 of only 5 people to ever post over 100 catches in his first 3 seasons. He is in his prime at 25. Hes in the top 10 of the best receivers in the league. Yes, you pay him that money.
by GreatestShowOnTurf on Mar 8, 2010 4:43 PM CST up reply actions
I'm glad it's your money you are willing to pay him and not mine.
No way can you afford to pay him that much.
How
can a team ever win if they don’t have great players? Name a great that has won without spending money. If he’s 30 years old, I wouldn’t pay him the money. But he’s not, hes 25.
by GreatestShowOnTurf on Mar 8, 2010 4:52 PM CST up reply actions
My pessimistic take . . .
I would be worried that because of his contract situation we would only get two years out of him tops if we were to land this trade; the final year of this current deal he’s on and then the following season when he have to franchise him because he realizes he doesn’t want to sign long term with a losing franchise (much like how the Richard Seymour to Oakland scenario seems to be playing out).
id say to this
if you arent willing to pay the money for a proven talent you lose all rights to bitch about how bad the team is
Pujols takes out "I" in BIG and "A" in MAC, previously considered to be an unyielding, consonant threat
He didn't have 100 catches his forst season...he only had 20
According to NFL.com’s stat page. Meh, what’s 80 balls?
You are
right, his last 3 years he has caught 100 passes. He was drafted in the 4th round so he didn’t get much playing his rookie season. This doesn’t affecting anything so do you really need to bring up this little fact? It really has nothing to do with the subject
by GreatestShowOnTurf on Mar 8, 2010 6:17 PM CST up reply actions
It has to do with "He is 1 of only 5 people to ever post over 100 catches in his first 3 seasons"
If “He is 1 of only 5 people to ever post over 100 catches in his first 3 seasons” has to do with the subject, then so does clearing up that statement’s inaccuracy.
Untrue statements should be cleared up. I’m not calling you a liar or anything, I’m sure it was a honest mistake….I’m just saying let’s be accurate. I try to thank people who correct me on stats and indisuptable facts, because I’ve mistakenly quoted them wrong on occassion too. I just don’t want our good fans thinking something that’s inaccurate, because some people really do believe anything they read on the internet.
He actually played in 15 games as a rook. 100 catches in first 3 years is sort of incredible.
Ok
Either way his numbers are still ridiculous.
by GreatestShowOnTurf on Mar 8, 2010 8:06 PM CST up reply actions
Unsure of the question
Are you suggesting we acquire the Saints pick in order to meet the tender requirement? If so, in that case we would be required to give up the 1st overall pick and not the pick we traded for. This is the difficulty Seattle had, as they would have to give up the 6th overall rather than the 14th overall since that is their actual pick, the 14th was obtained via trade.
The only way we could obtain Marshall with the 32nd pick would be via a trade but the Broncos have already stated they will not not negotiate a trade, so that means they would not consider taking the 32nd overall in trade negotiations, especially after seeming to refuse the Seahawks 14th.
If the Rams were to trade for Marshall, I would assume they would actually have greater leverage making an offer after the 1st Rd of the draft. If the Broncos still have Marshall and are looking to move him, they might then be swayed by our 2nd Rd pick along with probably a few others because of the timing. This would probably prove too expensive for the Rams and thus why I doubt the possibility.
The
Broncos want a first rounder for him. We don’t have to sign him as a RFA. We could use this pick to just trade for him. I no you will now ask, “Is one pick earlier going to get the job done”. Maybe not but the difference is a First Day pick and a Second Day pick.
by GreatestShowOnTurf on Mar 8, 2010 4:48 PM CST reply actions
If I'm not mistaken...
…the rule is that the Broncos get the higher of the two picks (because in this scenario we’d have two 1sts). Which means they’d get out #1 overall.
I think that’s why the Seahawks haven’t closed it yet. They might not think he’s worth the 6th overall selection.
"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 8, 2010 5:33 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I think this is the case as well....
Or they get that teams #1 vs a number 1 via another team……something like that.
Free Brandon Wood!
that would be the case. And he is good, but the character issues make him not a #1 overall pick good.
by kickasskeever on Mar 8, 2010 8:56 PM CST up reply actions
He
is definitely not worth the #1 pick
by GreatestShowOnTurf on Mar 8, 2010 9:05 PM CST up reply actions
Is he worth the pick?!
Umm, once again a proven top five WR in the NFL vs. the 32nd or 33rd best player in college…Lets not do that, it might help us out to have a real threat. A bunch of you have Combine syndrome and can no longer think rationally. Once again 47% of all drafted players are out of the league in 4 years. So we are looking at a coin flip vs. proven talent. Let’s keep that pick and maybe we can get the next Randy Moss or be struck by lightning! Waaaay too many scratch off players here. Scratch, scratch, scratch, I got Ryan Leaf, Scratch, scratch, scratch, I got Peyton Manning. Leaf has the stronger arm, he has to be better! Haha! Go Rams!
I would gladly do that,
except I don’t think changing the title of the pick from 2nd round to first round will help much if we only move up 1 pick. If they won’t take the 33rd pick in the draft I don’t think they would take the 32nd pick in the draft either. Besides we won’t actually have the 33rd pick because we’re trading down with it. Our front office has basically said that, so I am all but guaranteeing that we trade that pick for additional picks unless we think someone really valuable slid down that shouldn’t have.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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.
