Diagnose this quote.

[-X-]

The Griffin trade

The central question on the second phase of Snead's itinerary was never complicated: Would the Rams consider trading Sam Bradford, rather than the No. 2 overall pick, and take Griffin?

"No," Snead said, succinctly. "[hil]The only time it might've crossed my mind was if, for some reason, we were to get stuck at two because we didn't get what we really wanted.[/hil] Do you take the kid and trade him from there? That might've been the only time, and that would've been the riskiest of risky moves. But I'll be clear: We decided early on that Sam was our quarterback.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... -st-louis-

 

[steferfootball]

It is so convoluted, I don't know what to think about it.

 

[-X-]

It is so convoluted, I don't know what to think about it.

That's kinda what I was thinking.

"Sounds like" he was saying that if they were stuck at #2, they would take Griffin and then try to move...

(who?).

 

[Anonymous]

The Griffin trade

The central question on the second phase of Snead's itinerary was never complicated: Would the Rams consider trading Sam Bradford, rather than the No. 2 overall pick, and take Griffin?

"No," Snead said, succinctly. "[hil]The only time it might've crossed my mind was if, for some reason, we were to get stuck at two because we didn't get what we really wanted.[/hil] Do you take the kid and trade him from there? That might've been the only time, and that would've been the riskiest of risky moves. But I'll be clear: We decided early on that Sam was our quarterback.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... -st-louis-

Well let's grant first off that he don't gots a masters degree in syntax.

What he's saying is this. Theoretically, hypothetically, IF they could not trade the 2 the ONLY reason he would take Griffen would be to trade him later.

The very way he says it indicates that they thought about ALL their options, literally all of them, and that was one remote possibility. Not the least bit likely BUT you have to consider everything.

That's pretty much all he's saying there.

 

[Angry Ram]

Just hellbent on trading, first preference the #2 pick, but how desperate is he if there were no takers? He would've been made very desperate.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Sounds like if all 31 teams said "No, we aren't going to give you anything for him." and they were forced to take him (since they didn't like Kalil) then perhaps they would have given thought to trading Sam if that was their only option, and RG3 played good enough... Maybe? I dunno, it's hard to say.

I think they just explored every option out there to cover all bases.

 

[-X-]

I tend to agree with zn here, but there's something not quite right about that quote.

 

[Ram Quixote]

The Griffin trade

The central question on the second phase of Snead's itinerary was never complicated: Would the Rams consider trading Sam Bradford, rather than the No. 2 overall pick, and take Griffin?

"No," Snead said, succinctly. "[hil]The only time it might've crossed my mind was if, for some reason, we were to get stuck at two because we didn't get what we really wanted.[/hil] Do you take the kid and trade him from there? That might've been the only time, and that would've been the riskiest of risky moves. But I'll be clear: We decided early on that Sam was our quarterback.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... -st-louis-

The key here is what IT is. But Snead answers the question with the line, "Do you take the kid and trade him from there?" The KID is obviously Griffin, since the Rams already had Bradford and didn't have to "take" him.

In any case, the PR department needs to school Snead on specific spin, because IT could be anything.

 

[RamFan503]

Yeah, I think it is fairly obvious that "it" means take Griffin at #2. I take what he is saying is that they quite possibly would have taken Griffin at #2 if they didn't get the right trade for the spot. That would have been the value pick and they could have then traded him rather than let some other team try to play them knowing they didn't need a QB. Obviously that is risky but I don't see this regime shying away from risk.

 

[-X-]

Yeah, I think it is fairly obvious that "it" means take Griffin at #2. I take what he is saying is that they quite possibly would have taken Griffin at #2 if they didn't get the right trade for the spot. That would have been the value pick and they could have then traded him rather than let some other team try to play them knowing they didn't need a QB. Obviously that is risky but I don't see this regime shying away from risk.

Luckily there was more than one team desperate to get a QB, so all Snead had to do was pit them against each other for the rights to that spot. Even if they bargained with Minnesota, one of the other teams could have simply leap-frogged them and spoke to the Rams afterward. Which would have given us even more negotiating power.

As for the quote, I think you guys are right. It was just a poorly answered question.

 

[Anonymous]

Sounds like if all 31 teams said "No, we aren't going to give you anything for him." and they were forced to take him (since they didn't like Kalil) then perhaps they would have given thought to trading Sam if that was their only option, and RG3 played good enough... Maybe? I dunno, it's hard to say.

I think they just explored every option out there to cover all bases.

No, he's definitely not saying that.

There was no "trade Bradford" option.

He's saying if they couldn't trade the pick, they would take the player (Griffen) and then trade him. An Eli to the Giants kind of thing.

The problem is what's called a vague referent.

"The only time IT might've crossed my mind was if...."

What does he mean by IT? That is, it can technically refer to 2 different things--trading Bradford, OR taking Griffen.

If you look at what he says, though, it becomes obvious that the IT here refers to taking Griffen:

"Do you take the kid and trade him from there?"

"The kid" being Griffen. Like I said, a trade Eli kind of move.

Part of the problem is the article. It sets up the vague referent. If you listened to Snead word for word, not just what was quoted, my bet is he is clearly talking about taking Griffen--he's saying that ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO WAS THAT if they couldn't trade the 2 they could take Griffen then trade him afterward.

AND he doesn't rule out taking Kalil. He only says that the "take Griffen/trade him" scenario was only one of many scenarios he thought about. In fact, the gist is, he didn't like the "take Griffen/trade him" scenario (which leaves open the possibility of taking Kalil if they had gotten stuck at 2). He never says the "take Griffen/ trade him" possibility was the only possibility he thought of; he never says it was the most likely possibility if they got stuck at 2. He's just saying he thought of everything and that's one of the scenarios he thought of.

 

[RamFan503]

No, he's definitely not saying that.

No offense but a little presumptuous and affected don't you think?

 

[-X-]

AND he doesn't rule out taking Kalil.

He may not have said it there, but they weren't interested in taking Kalil at the top of the draft at all. I can't remember where I read it, but I did. They didn't even think he was the best OLineman in the draft from what I recall.

 

[bluecoconuts]

AND he doesn't rule out taking Kalil.

He may not have said it there, but they weren't interested in taking Kalil at the top of the draft at all. I can't remember where I read it, but I did. They didn't even think he was the best OLineman in the draft from what I recall.

It was one of those war room stories, they talked about how they were really happy when he got selected because they didn't want him.

 

[Anonymous]

AND he doesn't rule out taking Kalil.

He may not have said it there, but they weren't interested in taking Kalil at the top of the draft at all. I can't remember where I read it, but I did. They didn't even think he was the best OLineman in the draft from what I recall.

It was one of those war room stories, they talked about how they were really happy when he got selected because they didn't want him.

K.

 

[Anonymous]

No, he's definitely not saying that.

No offense but a little presumptuous and affected don't you think?

No, not at all. That wasn't meant as anything personal and there was no "tone" to it. Just posting the result of an analysis. It's neutral and clinical. No offense intended at all. I know electronic print communication can screw with tone, but, if you heard me say it you wouldn't have thought what you thought.

 

[RamFan503]

No, he's definitely not saying that.

No offense but a little presumptuous and affected don't you think?

No, not at all. That wasn't meant as anything personal and there was no "tone" to it. Just posting the result of an analysis. It's neutral and clinical. No offense intended at all. I know electronic print communication can screw with tone, but, if you heard me say it you wouldn't have thought what you thought.

Yeah - no doubt. I had someone jump on me the other day for insulting someone when I was actually paying them a compliment. Go figure. Anyway - guess I'm guilty of the same.

Cheers man.

 

[brokeu91]

Sounds like if all 31 teams said "No, we aren't going to give you anything for him." and they were forced to take him (since they didn't like Kalil) then perhaps they would have given thought to trading Sam if that was their only option, and RG3 played good enough... Maybe? I dunno, it's hard to say.

I think they just explored every option out there to cover all bases.

No, he's definitely not saying that.

There was no "trade Bradford" option.

He's saying if they couldn't trade the pick, they would take the player (Griffen) and then trade him. An Eli to the Giants kind of thing.

The problem is what's called a vague referent.

"The only time IT might've crossed my mind was if...."

What does he mean by IT? That is, it can technically refer to 2 different things--trading Bradford, OR taking Griffen.

If you look at what he says, though, it becomes obvious that the IT here refers to taking Griffen:

"Do you take the kid and trade him from there?"

"The kid" being Griffen. Like I said, a trade Eli kind of move.

Part of the problem is the article. It sets up the vague referent. If you listened to Snead word for word, not just what was quoted, my bet is he is clearly talking about taking Griffen--he's saying that ONE POSSIBLE SCENARIO WAS THAT if they couldn't trade the 2 they could take Griffen then trade him afterward.

AND he doesn't rule out taking Kalil. He only says that the "take Griffen/trade him" scenario was only one of many scenarios he thought about. In fact, the gist is, he didn't like the "take Griffen/trade him" scenario (which leaves open the possibility of taking Kalil if they had gotten stuck at 2). He never says the "take Griffen/ trade him" possibility was the only possibility he thought of; he never says it was the most likely possibility if they got stuck at 2. He's just saying he thought of everything and that's one of the scenarios he thought of.

That's what I took out of it too, but you're right that quote is not very clear

 

[rickrawk]

No sense trying to read something into that quote that may or may not be there. Sometimes I say things and then I think, did I say what I meant, or did that come out wrong?

You can take from it what you want, but I think "early on, we decided Sam was our quarterback" says it all.

GO RAMS!!!!

 

[Warner4Prez]

I think it means as fans we're all in dire need of some football. Camps, OTAs or just some pictures of guys in practice jerseys. It's over-analyzing at its finest I believe.

But yeah, Fisher had the choice to either go to a team where he could take a franchise QB (Miami) or roll with a QB he thought he was comfortable with (STL). Here he is.