Rob Rang: Could the Rams Have the Top Pick in 2015?

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

ZigZagRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,846
Not necessarily. Look at the other bad teams in the nlf who may have worse records than the rams (doubtful). Jaguars, Browns, Raiders, Redskins, Giants, etc. Now how many of those teams "need" a qb? Only the Giants might draft a qb in the 1st rd. All the others have drafted qb's in the 1st or 2nd and or have a backup who may start. If you look around the league how many teams really, really need a franchise qb who would move up? Houston? Arizona? Tampa Bay? I think we pick #1 overall anyway because I really dont see any team worse than the rams this year anyway. Top 5 pick guaranteed. Either way you dont compound the problem by doing what the redskins did. Rams are going to have their pick of at least 1of the top 2 qbs coming out next year so to me no trade.

Redskins may need a QB as well. Also, you have no clue who is going to finish below the Rams in the standings. You also have no clue who may trade up ahead of the Rams. Don't speak in absolutes about topics that even the brightest sports minds don't know. It's not going to go over well around here.

If any team is set up to make a Redskins-esque deal for an elite QB prospect, it's a team that's had 5 first rounders in the last three years.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Redskins may need a QB as well. Also, you have no clue who is going to finish below the Rams in the standings. You also have no clue who may trade up ahead of the Rams. Don't speak in absolutes about topics that even the brightest sports minds don't know. It's not going to go over well around here.

If any team is set up to make a Redskins-esque deal for an elite QB prospect, it's a team that's had 5 first rounders in the last three years.

And it would still be a colossal error.
 

wrstdude

Rookie
Joined
May 27, 2013
Messages
433
Well, then, let's get rid of it. A quick Wiccan search yielded this.
  • Light a black candle for cleansing and banishing.
  • Find a photo of your once-target and anoint it with olive oil. This will ruin the photo.
  • Say, “My fiery anger did not last. Remove the curse that I have cast. Let all ill will and energy flee, and let [target’s name] never suspect me.”
  • If you’re looking to avoid bad luck from removing a curse, it’s a good idea to give some small offering (that belonged to you) in exchange for the removal.
Is it bad that I actually considered doing this?
 

ZigZagRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,846
And it would still be a colossal error.

Again. Absolutes...

This would be a different team with a franchise QB. I'm not willing to say that guy to make it worth it will be in this draft class, however.

Come ask me at the end of this season.
 
Last edited:

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
Again. Absolutes...

This would be a different team with a franchise QB. I'm not willing to say that guy to make it worth it will be in this draft class, however.

Come ask me at the end of this season.

You betcha I will speak in an absolute here. There's significant history of trading future first round picks and it fails an extremely high percentage of the time. In today's NFL, they're even more valuable. Think of it within the parameters of the salary cap, you need a certain number of players on rookie contracts to keep your cap number down. When you give up that many picks, you're having to replace those guys with someone. That means you better be damn near perfect with your picks or else you'll be having to pay veterans...which means overpaying veterans messing with your cap or trying to shop in the bargain bin for players to fill holes on your roster.

Nay. Screw the trade. I'll take my chances. The only way I'd consider trading a future first is if I were moving up from the 20s into the top 5-7 picks for a player I loved. I'm certainly not making a RGIII type trade either ways.
 

cracengl

Rookie
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
360
They'll sort it out themselves.

orly.gif
They take turns. Bottom, top, it's all good in the hood.
 

ZigZagRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,846
You wouldn't trade three firsts for a Peyton Manning, Andrew Luck etc? I'm not talking a Cam Newton here.

I'd give up 5 firsts for a prospect of Manning's calliber.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
You wouldn't trade three firsts for a Peyton Manning, Andrew Luck etc? I'm not talking a Cam Newton here.

I'd give up 5 firsts for a prospect of Manning's calliber.

For Andrew Luck? No. For Peyton Manning? Yes. But that's with hindsight. I wasn't evaluating prospects when Manning was in college.
 

wrstdude

Rookie
Joined
May 27, 2013
Messages
433
For Andrew Luck? No. For Peyton Manning? Yes. But that's with hindsight. I wasn't evaluating prospects when Manning was in college.
And people have been searching for the next Peyton Manning since...Peyton Manning.

I'm not sure anyone knew he was going to be, arguably, the greatest QB to ever play the game. HOF potential is one thing, but he has been on another level.
 

ZigZagRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,846
And people have been searching for the next Peyton Manning since...Peyton Manning.

I'm not sure anyone knew he was going to be, arguably, the greatest QB to ever play the game. HOF potential is one thing, but he has been on another level.

That's why I threw Andrew Luck's name in there too. I'm talking A+ tiered prospects.

I wouldn't even think about making a move like that for a prospect that I'd grade out like Cam Newton, Matt Stafford, or RG3. But if a prospect like Manning or Luck were to emerge, you bet I'd jump at a deal that could give us an elite signal caller.
 

jrry32

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
29,790
That's why I threw Andrew Luck's name in there too. I'm talking A+ tiered prospects.

I wouldn't even think about making a move like that for a prospect that I'd grade out like Cam Newton, Matt Stafford, or RG3. But if a prospect like Manning or Luck were to emerge, you bet I'd jump at a deal that could give us an elite signal caller.

And for every Manning, you have a Ben Roethlisberger(#11), Aaron Rodgers(#24), Drew Brees(2nd), Russell Wilson(3rd), and Tom Brady(6th). Now, don't take this as me saying that we shouldn't draft a QB in the top 5 or even 10 picks. That would be crazy. What I'm saying is that giving up that sort of compensation for an unproven player just isn't worth it. You better be 100% sure that you're getting Peyton Manning. Because you can find QBs later in the first round and later in the draft.
 

ZigZagRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,846
And for every Manning, you have a Ben Roethlisberger(#11), Aaron Rodgers(#24), Drew Brees(2nd), Russell Wilson(3rd), and Tom Brady(6th). Now, don't take this as me saying that we shouldn't draft a QB in the top 5 or even 10 picks. That would be crazy. What I'm saying is that giving up that sort of compensation for an unproven player just isn't worth it. You better be 100% sure that you're getting Peyton Manning. Because you can find QBs later in the first round and later in the draft.

I agree that there has to be certainty.

Chances are that QB isn't going to be in this class. There's also a chance that the depth chart is going to look a lot more flawed once this season wraps up as well, making those firsts untradeable.
 

simonblaze

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
1,108
Name
Simonblaze
Before the season started I would've bet a decent amount of money the lowest we would've picked was 16th but now number 1? Who knows, it's not like we lost a competitive game against a good team. We got blown out by a mediocre team.
 

fearsomefour

Legend
Joined
Jan 15, 2013
Messages
17,079
For Andrew Luck? No. For Peyton Manning? Yes. But that's with hindsight. I wasn't evaluating prospects when Manning was in college.
But, Im sure you remember how many people (including many draft experts and former GMs) preferred Ryan Leaf to Peyton Manning. Bigger arm, slightly more mobile ect. Hindsight makes everything crystal clear. There have been tons of "cant miss" guys that have missed wildly and plenty of after thoughts that have had nice careers.
The reality is teams pay staffs of experienced, bright people plenty of money to evaluate, measure, break down and advise year round....year round, and teams still cannot find 32 guys to do this job at a high level in the NFL. It is going to be tough no matter where we pick or what route we take.
 

Irish

Starter
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
962
I would absolutely trade 3 first round picks for Cam Newton. Dude is the real deal.

Andrew Luck
Cam Newton
Robert Griffin III (Healthy, not rushed back from ACL surgery)
Nick Foles (maybe)


It is going to take a TON of convincing to get me to believe that Mariota or Hundley or any of the others are in the same ball park as those 3 (4) guys