I have no doubt the Rams tried trading Michael Sam

[Jumava1968]

Well that ESPN report on his showering habits right before the last cuts, did more damage to his chances on being claimed thru waivers then his actual play did IMHO

 

[RFIP]

so if they trade Westbrooks, you dont think he stays on the 53? Why don;t you just come out and say it,, you dont want him on the team period? You seem to be discounting that as an option. Instead, you want to believe that they were ONLY shopping Sam. Take off the blinders.

Again, believe what you want,,, but they were considering it.

What I want for this team is greatness. Victories. And Championships.

If Michael Sam helps bring any of that then I'm all in.

What I am speaking to here however is the game of charades I believe went on at Rams park.

The Rams had some hard choices at cb and at wr too.

Those who got cut got resigned to PS telling ME that they WERE hard choices.

The cutting of Sam however, along with the IMMEDIATE word that he would not be signed to the PS tells ME that barring a large rash of injures the Rams had no intentions of keeping him but rather talked him up enough to try and get "something" in return.

Again, name me the last gut wrenching cut of a PS eligible player that said team had NO intention of signing to their PS?

Go ahead, I'll wait.

 

[Mackeyser]

With the new PS rules, they knew they could keep Conrath, so Sam had no chance for a PS spot because they could go 9 DL on the active and Conrath on the PS, who they like for a reason that escapes me and the rules of observation and logic.

Now, they didn't TELL anyone they were going to keep Conrath. That's why so many of us thought Sam had a chance. If they told any of us that Conrath was actually going to be on the PS, I could have told you after the 3rd game that Sam was out of the league. By then, Westbrooks had sealed the deal for himself even though Sam had played very well, also.

So, done deal. Conrath... smh.

Nope. just doesn't compute.

 

[Thordaddy]

What I am speaking to here however is the game of charades ..............

Those who got cut got resigned to PS telling ME that they WERE hard choices.



Again, name me the last gut wrenching cut of a PS eligible player that said team had NO intention of signing to their PS?

.

What would that prove? JMO it's a false equivalence

 

[Philly5]

so if they trade Westbrooks, you dont think he stays on the 53? Why don;t you just come out and say it,, you dont want him on the team period? You seem to be discounting that as an option. Instead, you want to believe that they were ONLY shopping Sam. Take off the blinders.

Again, believe what you want,,, but they were considering it.

What are we getting in return for an UDFA like Westbrooks that would make it worthwhile to keep a player on our 53 that we don't even want on our PS? Personally, I think if any rumors are being floated it is because we are in CYA mode.

 

[Thordaddy]

What are we getting in return for an UDFA like Westbrooks that would make it worthwhile to keep a player on our 53 that we don't even want on our PS? Personally, I think if any rumors are being floated it is because we are in CYA mode.

I don't doubt when the real mud slinging starts if Sam doesn't secure a job will fall on us to some degree, hell we've got board members ostensibly calling our coaches liars . Unfortunately the press in their fervre bolster the POV that it wasn't worth the trouble drafting Sam would cause.
Reminds me of the young religious QB from North Dallas Forty crying while he was banging the bimbet at the party ,they just can't help themselves ,they complain it's such a cause and make it one at the same time,it's tedious how many faces they have