For discussion, if St. Louis wants Mariota

[Stel]

And to me that is still a big if, look at the three current mocks on cbssports.com, from Brugler, Rang and Prisco,

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/mock-draft

and, if the real draft started the way any of them project, tell me why St. Louis wouldn't make a deal with Washington. Such a trade would allow St. Louis to get the QB it wants and Washington would likely be in position to get the same or a similar player at #10 and have an extra premium pick, a trade which benefits both teams. Just seems like a no brainer to me (unless some other team offers Washington more). Of course, all depends on whether St. Louis wants Mariota.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Washington might want to play hardball and recoup some of their losses from the RGIII trade. If so, the Raiders might be the better trading partner.

Either way, it's a struggle to consider the idea of trading significant extra draft choices to move up for a guy to backup Bradford. If it's significant compensation, Mariota should be the starter.

BTW, if they really want the guy, maybe a deal with the Titans including Bradford may be a consideration.

 

[Stel]

With either Oakland or Washington, would take something like our #10 and #41 (or substitute the 2016 first round pick), and maybe some later round consideration.
With Tennessee, would take something like the RGIII trade and I'm not sure I'd give up that much for any prospect.

To me, trading up only comes into consideration if Tennessee passes on Mariota AND St. Louis has him evaluated that high.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Washington might want to play hardball and recoup some of their losses from the RGIII trade. If so, the Raiders might be the better trading partner.

Either way, it's a struggle to consider the idea of trading significant extra draft choices to move up for a guy to backup Bradford. If it's significant compensation, Mariota should be the starter.

BTW, if they really want the guy, maybe a deal with the Titans including Bradford may be a consideration.

I don't think that is the way the Rams will look at it. If they move up to take Mariota then they feel he would be Bradfords future replacement. They could play Bradford all year with Mariota as the backup and then let Sam walk next offseason if Marcus looks like he is ready to start. I don't think choosing Mariota and starting him day 1 is the best scenario, although teams feel the pressure to do so whenever they choose a QB high.

If Sam is playing well enough and Mariota is not doing as well then the Rams could resign Sam and hang onto Mariota and recoup some lost picks later on if they wanted to trade Sam in 2017. You always say that the 2015 draft is not about 2015.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Not that this is being debated but I do feel that if the Rams wanted one of the top two QBs it would be Mariota because Fisher loves QBs that take care of the football. Mariota does not throw many INTs and Winston does.

 

[Schmitzer]

I'm against trading up, personally. I think you can improve QB play by improving the OLINE easier than by drafting a QB. And since we've traded two of our picks already, it makes even less sense.

 

[Memphis Ram]

I don't think that is the way the Rams will look at it. If they move up to take Mariota then they feel he would be Bradfords future replacement. They could play Bradford all year with Mariota as the backup and then let Sam walk next offseason if Marcus looks like he is ready to start. I don't think choosing Mariota and starting him day 1 is the best scenario, although teams feel the pressure to do so whenever they choose a QB high.

If Sam is playing well enough and Mariota is not doing as well then the Rams could resign Sam and hang onto Mariota and recoup some lost picks later on if they wanted to trade Sam in 2017. You always say that the 2015 draft is not about 2015.

All Bradford needs is one bad game for most everyone to be screaming for Mariota, thus creating a QB controversy which rarely helps teams. But, yes, the 2015 draft is not just about the 2015 season.

Regardless, giving up significant compensation to move up for a QB automatically announces to Bradford and the rest of the league that he's out. This year or next.

That could make it far more difficult to re-sign him to a contract that is salary cap moveable in 2017, if he plays well (And impossible to get him to budge this offseason if not already done pre-draft). Plus, it might hinder the potential return if teams know they have to move him. And chances are, they surely wouldn't have the cap space to franchise him with so many free agents coming up next offseason. If so, the best they might get in return is a compensatory selection after letting him walk.

 

[Yamahopper]

All Bradford needs is one bad game for most everyone to be screaming for Mariota, thus creating a QB controversy which rarely helps teams. But, yes, the 2015 draft is not just about the 2015 season.

Regardless, giving up significant compensation to move up for a QB automatically announces to Bradford and the rest of the league that he's out. This year or next.

That could make it far more difficult to re-sign him to a contract that is salary cap moveable in 2017, if he plays well. And it might hinder the potential return if teams know they have to move him. And chances are they surely wouldn't have the cap space to franchise him with so many free agents coming up next offseason.

I agree with you on this.
If the Rams get MM I think Bradford is gone by training camp for the reasons you stated.
And the offense MM would be running should be different to take in account what he can do that SB can't.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

All Bradford needs is one bad game for most everyone to be screaming for Mariota, thus creating a QB controversy which rarely helps teams. But, yes, the 2015 draft is not just about the 2015 season.

Regardless, giving up significant compensation to move up for a QB automatically announces to Bradford and the rest of the league that he's out. This year or next.

That could make it far more difficult to re-sign him to a contract that is salary cap moveable in 2017, if he plays well (And impossible to get him to budge this offseason if not already done pre-draft). Plus, it might hinder the potential return if teams know they have to move him. And chances are, they surely wouldn't have the cap space to franchise him with so many free agents coming up next offseason. If so, the best they might get in return is a compensatory selection after letting him walk.

With so many free agents coming up maybe it would be best to move on from Sam and only have a rookie QB contract to give them cap space.

If you cannot tell, I hate having to rely on injured players. I just don't have faith in Sam being able to be on the field a full season anymore.

 

[iced]

supposedly Philly has a trade in place with the Jets if Mariota falls to 6

 

[12intheBox]

If the Rams REALLY want MM, then they need to go up and get him. You don't keep your fingers crossed and hope your franchise QB falls to you.

If they are not 100% sold, they should pass even if he makes it to 10.

 

[lockdnram21]

I don't see them trading up but I could see them trading down and taking Hundley or Petty in the bottom of 1st or trade up higher in the 2nd to get 1 of them.

 

[jrry32]

All Bradford needs is one bad game for most everyone to be screaming for Mariota, thus creating a QB controversy which rarely helps teams. But, yes, the 2015 draft is not just about the 2015 season.

Regardless, giving up significant compensation to move up for a QB automatically announces to Bradford and the rest of the league that he's out. This year or next.

That could make it far more difficult to re-sign him to a contract that is salary cap moveable in 2017, if he plays well (And impossible to get him to budge this offseason if not already done pre-draft). Plus, it might hinder the potential return if teams know they have to move him. And chances are, they surely wouldn't have the cap space to franchise him with so many free agents coming up next offseason. If so, the best they might get in return is a compensatory selection after letting him walk.

Good. Bradford will be playing for his next contract. That motivation should only help him play better.

Our cap situation looks quite good for 2016. If we wanted to franchise him, we'd have the space.

I agree with Elm. Mariota is coming from a system that doesn't resemble a NFL system, you want to do what's best for the kid...sit him until he's ready. Bradford gives us that luxury...at least as long as he's healthy.

I'd be pretty disappointed in our FO/Coaches if they gave a crap about there possibly being a QB controversy in the minds of the fans and media. There's no QB controversy. You tell them straight up, "we're starting Bradford this year."

 

[Memphis Ram]

Good. Bradford will be playing for his next contract. That motivation should only help him play better.

Our cap situation looks quite good for 2016. If we wanted to franchise him, we'd have the space.

I agree with Elm. Mariota is coming from a system that doesn't resemble a NFL system, you want to do what's best for the kid...sit him until he's ready. Bradford gives us that luxury...at least as long as he's healthy.

I'd be pretty disappointed in our FO/Coaches if they gave a crap about there possibly being a QB controversy in the minds of the fans and media. There's no QB controversy. You tell them straight up, "we're starting Bradford this year."

The 2016 cap situation looks good now because there are only 25 or so players that should be under contract as it stands today.

 

[JonRam99]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/25094856

Canfora is pushing this... does he work for the Titans or something???