BREAKING NEWS !! Myles Garrett to the Rams / Verse to the Browns

  • 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.
gogoat1 said:
Not sure what all this boner talk going on.
There is nothing any man can do to make me get one.
Watching the Rams destroy teams does not help get me one either.
Now, if the Rams cheerleaders, except the dudes that I am not to happy about, would play some tackle lingerie football with close ups and slo mo, yeah that would do it.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping the boners are figurative and not literal...........not that there's anything wrong with that..........:quiet:
 
Psycho_X said:
Since this seemed to create some confusion in this thread I'll just leave this here.


View: https://x.com/jjones9/status/2062918611551825935?s=20
Click to expand...

This is true as a stand-alone statement. The Rams cannot trade a 2029 1st Rounder for player x.

However, I still say my hypothetical CONDITIONAL trade package with the 2 scenarios works and would stand.

Refer to my hypothetical Rams-Bengals trade and tell me HOW the League can veto it?


Trade scenario #1 exists and gets the deal consummated.

At the point in time ( Whenever that's determined, have no idea) that the Rams have RETAINED their 2029 1st (no Garrett trade to the AFC North) the Rams and Bengals can consummate trade scenaro #2, IF they so choose.

This is completely irrefutible.

All Jonathan Jones is stating is the same thing Old School was stating. My hypothetical easily and successfully gets around that.
 
Last edited:
  • HaHa
Reactions: hotanez
Coliseum Ram said:
This is true as a stand-alone statement. The Rams cannot trade a 2029 1st Rounder for player x.

I still say my Hypothetical CONDITIONAL trade package with the 2 scenarios works and would stand.

Refer to my hypothetical Rams-Bengals trade and tell me HOW the League can veto it?
Click to expand...

I believe there are specific ROD Forum Rules AGAINST posting 'Hypothetical, Conditional trade packages'; and, should they have multiple 'scenarios' attached to them, posters can be both suspended and fined.

ROD is a Serious Place!!!!
1780679429930.webp
 
  • Shock
Reactions: Coliseum Ram
Coliseum Ram said:
This is true as a stand-alone statement. The Rams cannot trade a 2029 1st Rounder for player x.

However, I still say my hypothetical CONDITIONAL trade package with the 2 scenarios works and would stand.

Refer to my hypothetical Rams-Bengals trade and tell me HOW the League can veto it?


Trade scenario #1 exists and gets the deal consummated.

At the point in time ( Whenever that's determined, have no idea) that the Rams have RETAINED their 2029 1st (no Garrett trade to the AFC North) the Rams and Bengals can consummate trade scenaro #2, IF they so choose.

This is completely irrefutible.

All Jonathan Jones is stating is the same thing Old School was stating. My hypothetical easily and successfully gets around that.
Click to expand...
:eyeroll::zany1:
 
Coliseum Ram said:
The Los Angeles Rams have struck a trade with the Cincinnati Bengals after Matthew Stafford's retirement at the conclusion of the 2027 season.

Trade scenario #1

The deal sends QB Ty Simpson, a 2028 1st Round pick and a 2029 2nd Round Pick and 2030 1st Round pick

Or, OR.....
Trade scenario #2

QB Ty Simpson, a 2028 1st Round pick, and a 2029 1st Round pick.

The deal is in place, Burrow goes to the Rams, Simpson to the Bengals. Final draft pick compensation will be concluded upon at onset of 2029 Draft.

If Rams trade DE Myles Garrett to AFC North Team at any point before 2029 Draft, Option 1 is the trade.

If the Rams DO NOT trade Garrett into the AFC North at time of 2029 Draft, Option 2 is the trade.

THAT'S how.........
Click to expand...
Burrow is a great talent, too many injuries for my taste. Three seasons missing zero games, three seasons missing nearly half the schedule with injuries.

Feels very dicey.
 
AZRams said:
Burrow is a great talent, too many injuries for my taste. Three seasons missing zero games, three seasons missing nearly half the schedule with injuries.

Feels very dicey.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying I want this trade either. Was merely posting a hypothetical on how the Rams can EASILY get around the 2029 first round pick thingy.
 
I guess we can split the difference and state that Old School, you are CORRECT, the Rams cannot trade the 2029 1st Round pick....even conditionally.

And Coliseum Ram, (you handsome devil) you are correct that this fact is simply a minor diversion that wouldn't stop ANYTHING in the way of a wanted-by-both-teams transaction.
 
Coliseum Ram said:
This is true as a stand-alone statement. The Rams cannot trade a 2029 1st Rounder for player x.

However, I still say my hypothetical CONDITIONAL trade package with the 2 scenarios works and would stand.

Refer to my hypothetical Rams-Bengals trade and tell me HOW the League can veto it?


Trade scenario #1 exists and gets the deal consummated.

At the point in time ( Whenever that's determined, have no idea) that the Rams have RETAINED their 2029 1st (no Garrett trade to the AFC North) the Rams and Bengals can consummate trade scenaro #2, IF they so choose.

This is completely irrefutible.

All Jonathan Jones is stating is the same thing Old School was stating. My hypothetical easily and successfully gets around that.
Click to expand...
I mean, that was a long explanation to just say the same thing he said "until that condition is officially unmet". The specifics of how and when the condition becomes "unmet" could end up happening a lot of ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coliseum Ram
Psycho_X said:
I mean, that was a long explanation to just say the same thing he said "until that condition is officially unmet". The specifics of how and when the condition becomes "unmet" could end up happening a lot of ways.
Click to expand...
LOL, yes, i guess im just a long explanation (long-winded?) kind of guy....

But seriously folks, as I stated in a post above, Old School gets the W technically speaking.

Now, real world and actuality speaking, this (2029 1st thing which is not happening) prevents the Rams from nothing.

NO-THING.......
 
Faceplant said:
Oh, LT is 100% in that breath, as are Reggie White, Bruce Smith, etc..... Obviously this is just my opinion though.
Click to expand...
Myself, I do not put Sanders in with those guys. He is not the best ever RB. Too many runs for a loss. Put his team in 3rd and long too much. I will take prime ED all day over him. Jim Brown was better too.
 
Coliseum Ram said:
Simpson still not safe. If they so choose Rams can EASILY pull off a Joe Burrow, Josh Allen, Justin Herbert trade with relative ease.

And that 2029 1st Rounder can easily find its way into the deal as well.
Click to expand...
I think the idea of trading that 2029 is pretty much wish casting by some of this board.

Do I think there's some marginal case where it could occur, sure - perhaps there's language in the contract that stipulate the 1st can go to 2010 that we don't know about or a team agrees to an either/or 1st on a latter day trade but for the most part I think the pick is fairly untradeable.

It's not the end of the world.

I also think Rams truly are committed to Simpson and view him as the future...

... until they don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coliseum Ram
WestCoastRam said:
I think the idea of trading that 2029 is pretty much wish casting by some of this board.

Do I think there's some marginal case where it could occur, sure - perhaps there's language in the contract that stipulate the 1st can go to 2010 that we don't know about or a team agrees to an either/or 1st on a latter day trade but for the most part I think the pick is fairly untradeable.

It's not the end of the world.

I also think Rams truly are committed to Simpson and view him as the future...

... until they don't.
Click to expand...
Yes, for the purposes of this discussion on the board Simpson was only thrown around as an example. Whether the Rams end up loving, and sticking with, Simoson, or moving him in a trade for an established Quarterback ultimately, no one knows and is not really pertinent to the board discussion. Yes the Rams cannot trade the 2029 1st round pick until they OWN it. Whether this is triggered on the night of the 2029 draft or at some earlier point in time I really don't know but would love to find out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back