Rumors Rams move to 1 already starting...

  • 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.
Browns
  • According to Matt Miller, the expectation around the NFL is that the Browns will target a quarterback in round one.
  • Scouts have told Miller that they prefer the big arm of Carson Wentz over the accuracy and poise of Jared Goff.
As per Twitter nflrumour
 
I'd take Wentz in a heartbeat but my guy is still Goff. I'd move up to 1 overall just to ensure that I would get him.

Looking at what Fish prefers, the size and mobility should put the other two very close or maybe higher than Goff on the Rams board. So I presume they don't agree but if I were the GM I'd be all over that top pick. Still got my fingers crossed, either way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dodgersrf and DR RAM
If you thought that there was just one blue chip QB... and you knew that the Browns could be taking him. You'd have to trade to 1.

No way would I do a RGIII trade for one of these guys but I think a 1st this year, a 1st next year and some combination of additional picks in this and/or next years draft can get it done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dodgersrf and PressureD41
Funny how the RGIII trade could come back and cost the Rams similar or more in a draft trade. Snead set the standard and will have to deal with it if he wants the #1 pick. It will be interesting.
 
RamBill said:
Keenum is still the same guy who was let go from the quarterback-needy Houston Texans twice in the past two years and was also released by the QB-needy Rams once.
Click to expand...
This may be true bit Keenum never stepped on the field for the Rams in those previous time with the Team! Now we know what we have in him!

I might be talked into a trade/flipping our #1, and sending one of our#2's, and Tre Mason to the Titan's for their #1!! Nothing in the Future!!
 
Ram65 said:
Funny how the RGIII trade could come back and cost the Rams similar or more in a draft trade. Snead set the standard and will have to deal with it if he wants the #1 pick. It will be interesting.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the Rams are trading from much further back than the Redskins were, too. On the pick trade value charts, the difference between #15 and #6 is the third pick in the 2nd round, or a future first. And it would be moving up to #1, not #2 which again usually costs more. Even if the Rams got a significant discount from the trade value chart, I'm skeptical the Rams would be willing to cripple themselves enough in future drafts in order to move up that far. Keep in mind the main reason that the Redskins weren't crippled is a 3rd round flyer they took turned out to be a decent QB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BonifayRam
dieterbrock said:
Rams are attractive because they have 2 2nd rounders.
Wonder if Tennessee would have interest in Tre Mason also
Click to expand...
More likely they are more interested in demanding Aarron Donald, Tavon Austin & Alec Ogletree & Robert Quinn instead along with a boat load of future first round selections.

I would trade them starters JL, Akeem Ayers, C. Long, Micheal Brockers, Jared Cook, Rodger Saffold, Nick Foles along with Tre Mason.

Might as well wait till the 2017 draft where we will be in a much better position to move up from the #2 or #3 overall pick to the #1 pick to get a decent starting QB.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Akrasian
BonifayRam said:
More likely they are more interested in demanding Aarron Donald, Tavon Austin & Alec Ogletree & Robert Quinn instead along with a boat load of future first round selections.

I would trade them starters JL, Akeem Ayers, C. Long, Micheal Brockers, Jared Cook, Rodger Saffold, Nick Foles along with Tre Mason.

Might as well wait till the 2017 draft where we will be in a much better position to move up from the #2 or #3 overall pick to the #1 pick to get a decent starting QB.
Click to expand...
I don't see where you're coming from with any of these 3 points...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PressureD41 and dieterbrock
BonifayRam said:
More likely they are more interested in demanding Aarron Donald, Tavon Austin & Alec Ogletree & Robert Quinn instead along with a boat load of future first round selections.

I would trade them starters JL, Akeem Ayers, C. Long, Micheal Brockers, Jared Cook, Rodger Saffold, Nick Foles along with Tre Mason.

Might as well wait till the 2017 draft where we will be in a much better position to move up from the #2 or #3 overall pick to the #1 pick to get a decent starting QB.
Click to expand...
Was this supposed to be blue font?
 
jjab360 said:
I don't see where you're coming from with any of these 3 points...
Click to expand...
I'm thinking it was a joke?

In any event, I love these types of headlines. The Rams aren't mentioned because they are looking to make a deal, they are mentioned because they have some assets
 
Guys, I'm not sure you can use the RGIII trade as the standard for trading up to 1. Different draft, different player. RGIII and Luck would go 1 and 2 in this draft and the guys we're talking about would all be relegated to bottom of the 1st round. There was a bidding war with the Browns for our pick too that affected the bounty of picks. The chart is a starting point for a discussion on how much it will cost but the market will determine whether the cost swings more or less than what came before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dodgersrf
WestCoastRam said:
Guys, I'm not sure you can use the RGIII trade as the standard for trading up to 1. Different draft, different player. RGIII and Luck would go 1 and 2 in this draft and the guys we're talking about would all be relegated to bottom of the 1st round. There was a bidding war with the Browns for our pick too that affected the bounty of picks. The chart is a starting point for a discussion on how much it will cost but the market will determine whether the cost swings more or less than what came before.
Click to expand...

You're stretching things quite a bit with the bold.

But the message of your post is 100% right. Chart is only relevant for a baseline. If nobody is offering that, it doesn't matter. Market determines what will be paid.
 
Let's say, for the sake of argument, I'm right about these guys (Goff, Lynch, Wentz) are bottom of 1st round guys. With the advent of the new CBA and the dearth of competent QB play in the NFL, I still think you have to grab a guy where you have to get him in the 1st if you don't have a QB.

The contracts will no longer punish you for years like they once did if you get it wrong.
 
WestCoastRam said:
I hope you're right @jrry32, cause that means that these QBs trading up for.
Click to expand...

If you look at the Luck/RGIII draft, Tannehill still went top 10. Wentz and Goff are better prospects than Tannehill was. Lynch is equal to him.
 
@jrry32, that's cool. I definitely think Tannehill was overdrafted by a dozen spots or so but he's a legit talent. Shame too, I think he could have had a little more success than what he's had he gone elsewhere.

I'd like to think both Goff and Lynch are more polished than he was coming out.
 
WestCoastRam said:
@jrry32, that's cool. I definitely think Tannehill was overdrafted by a dozen spots or so but he's a legit talent. Shame too, I think he could have had a little more success than what he's had he gone elsewhere.

I'd like to think both Goff and Lynch are more polished than he was coming out.
Click to expand...

He's an average to above average QB. I wouldn't be upset if he's what I came away with.

Disagree with him being overdrafted. He was drafted right around where I expected. You basically explained it in your post above. You have to account for QB positional value when ranking them. To not do so would make the ranking fairly pointless.

But that's just my opinion. Plenty of room for disagreement with the draft.
 
@jrry32, okay, you're making sense, my man.

I don't love thinking of trying to account for positional value for QBs when ranking but that's messing up my analysis. In fact, I think it points out a fallacy in my argument. When I mention that these QBs would be bottom of round 1, I should be saying that they would rank near the bottom of my top 32 players in the draft which is different than where they should or would be slotted to go.

You've won me over to your argument. I believe that's the first time it's ever happened in the history of the internet. Mazel!!! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jrry32
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back