Rams on the Clock

[RamFan503]

OL, FS, OLB, developmental QB. We have a lot of needs. If we didn't we wouldn't be LAST in our conference.

I'm saying in this thread. Isn't that the next step - deciding whose offer we take and then what we do with it? Just wondering who y'all actually think we took once we made the trade.

 

[OnceARam]

I'm saying in this thread. Isn't that the next step - deciding whose offer we take and then what we do with it? Just wondering who y'all actually think we took once we made the trade.

The 'mock draft' section of this site has some pretty good stuff on this. My trading down we get one more guy. That could be the difference considering we can't hit on every pick. Although our FO has been pretty good.

 

[12intheBox]

Sorry for the delay - the Rams take the Browns offer and now have 3 picks in the first round.

1. ATL - Clowney
2. Clev - Bridgewater
3. Jax - Mack
4. The Rams are on the clock

Minnesota's offer still stands - apparently their guy is still available. They will give up a 2015 number 1 pick for us to drop to 8.

No one else is offering anything worth reporting.

But you should know that Snead has been talking with the Raiders about the number 5 pick and they are willing to take our middle #1 and our second round pick (13 and 44) for 5. Keep that in mind.

So the choice for now is this:

Take a guy at 4 or take the Vikings offer.

(It may be better to make new threads or polls - I can't seem to edit the OP - bear w me and let's see if this will work)

 

[bluecoconuts]

Robinson, I want to build up the line. We can look at S or WR later. We need blue chip on the line though.

 

[laramsoriginal]

Take Robinson at #4

 

[Boffo97]

Take the Vikings offer. I want to trade down just enough that we get what's left between Watkins, Robinson and Matthews AND have as many stocked picks as possible.

 

[Ramhusker]

I want to be like a cheap whore and passed to Cleveland then again to the next highest bidder. And yes, I don't advocate moving down too far to get one of Mathews, Robinson, Watkins, Evans, or Mack.

 

[Rams and Gators]

Take Robinson, but could you get the Raiders on the phone and see what it would take to get their #5 pick?

 

[Boffo97]

Take Robinson, but could you get the Raiders on the phone and see what it would take to get their #5 pick?

From 12's message, it seems it would take #13 and #44 to get #5.

 

[MerlinJones]

Take Matthews/Robinson at 4.

No trade up to 5, thanks.

 

[Rams and Gators]

From 12's message, it seems it would take #13 and #44 to get #5.

Why don't I read messages?

I'll amend my original statement to take Robinson trade up and take Watkins.

 

[RamFan503]

The Raiders #5 is intriguing because you could then take either both Matthews AND Robinson (That's for you Boffo ) or you could take Matthews/Robinson AND Watkins. One tricky part we need to think about also is that a #5 pick will cost almost twice what a #13 pick will cost in salary against the cap.

If we move down to #8, I think that puts us into a position of missing on one of our top guys. We would be counting on both Houston and Minnesota taking QBs. The Raisuhs are likely going to take either the top lineman or Watkins. The Bucs are likely to go O-line as well so both top O-linemen would likely be gone at our pick - or the top lineman on OUR list and Watkins could be gone. No likey.

I say stay put at #4 - take Robinson and we still have the ability to move around with the #13 and #26 when it's our turn to play.

 

[Boffo97]

The Raiders #5 is intriguing because you could then take either both Matthews AND Robinson (That's for you Boffo )

Bad 503. No 503 treats for you.

I'll adapt a question I asked on another thread though for anyone seriously considering this... LG, RG, RT. Saffold, Barksdale, Matthews, Robinson. Who do you bench? And is that a good idea?

 

[Rams and Gators]

Bad 503. No 503 treats for you.

I'll adapt a question I asked on another thread though for anyone seriously considering this... LG, RG, RT. Saffold, Barksdale, Matthews, Robinson. Who do you bench? And is that a good idea?

Just put Matthews at C, easy.

 

[RamFan503]

Bad 503. No 503 treats for you.

I'll adapt a question I asked on another thread though for anyone seriously considering this... LG, RG, RT. Saffold, Barksdale, Matthews, Robinson. Who do you bench? And is that a good idea?

Probably Barks but that will depend on how soon the two are ready to step in. My thought would be that Barks would be our fill in at both Tackle spots, maybe come in on goal line situations where you really want to beef up on the line.

 

[WillasDad]

Just a lurker's point of view, but I think I'd take Cleveland's #4 and 26. Even if we trade down from #2 to 4, I don't see Robinson (or anyone else we're targeting) being off the list by going down just a couple spots. And in return, we get what would essentially be a trade of our 3rd round pick for the #26 overall. 1st for a 3rd? Does anyone really have to think about this?

Plus I could see Garoppalo being available by that #26 pick, and a bunch of teams probably getting nervous and willing to give up a lot to get him (a later first rounder or future first?) and maybe even a 2nd or 3rd rounder, plus a very satisfying smack in the face to Houston for trying to steal our trade thunder with that Atlanta trade.

 

[Alan]

WillasDad jumping into the deep end:
Just a lurker's point of view, but I think I'd take Cleveland's #4 and 26. Even if we trade down from #2 to 4, I don't see Robinson (or anyone else we're targeting) being off the list by going down just a couple spots. And in return, we get what would essentially be a trade of our 3rd round pick for the #26 overall. 1st for a 3rd? Does anyone really have to think about this?

Plus I could see Garoppalo being available by that #26 pick, and a bunch of teams probably getting nervous and willing to give up a lot to get him (a later first rounder or future first?) and maybe even a 2nd or 3rd rounder, plus a very satisfying smack in the face to Houston for trying to steal our trade thunder with that Atlanta trade.

Welcome to the ROD Dad! :lifting: :seizure: :rockon: :cheers:
About time you stuck your toe in. As long as you don't dress up like a triple cheeseburger nobody will bite you here.

Welcome to our tribe!
“A tribe is a group of people connected to one another, connected to a leader, and connected to an idea. For millions of years, human beings have been part of one tribe or another. A group needs only two things to be a tribe: a shared interest and a way to communicate.”
Seth Godin

 

[stlrams_as]

well honestly after a couple of seasons of trading and gaining picks I would love to see the Rams finally use the high pick and take that big name player, however i realize we are probably not quite built to the point where that would be the most beneficial move. So I would trade the pick. I would do number 3, trade it to Cleveland in this scenario. I would love all the top level picks from Houston, however I would be concerned about money what that many top level picks command. I know the picks are set in salary, but I am still not sure what it equals out to and three years down the line the ability to retain those picks. The second option with the Vikings really doesn't give us any return. So I would take Cleveland's trade to move down initially and move up in a later round. Especially with, as usual, the draft being predicted to be deep.

 

[12intheBox]

With no ability to edit the OP, I think I'll take Mojo's advise and start a new thread for each decision - hopefully they don't clog the board and are a bit easier to follow.

By the way, the Rams are taking Greg Robinson here.

 

[Mojo Ram]

With no ability to edit the OP, I think I'll take Mojo's advise and start a new thread for each decision - hopefully they don't clog the board and are a bit easier to follow.

By the way, the Rams are taking Greg Robinson here.

Already done my friend. Started it this afternoon.