Rams trade to number 1
-
#8
2017 1st rounder
Fletcher Cox
Knowing us we would take Donovan McNabb
-
#8
2017 1st rounder
Fletcher Cox
Knowing us we would take Donovan McNabb
-
This is basically the best case scenario, and worst case scenario at the same time. If there is a QB that we had targeted, there is a good chance that we don't get him now. While on the other hand, many people I've heard discussing analytics have stated that acquiring picks is the way to go.
I think there's NO WAY we stay at number two. In fact, I don't see HOW we can. Just look at the number of impactful free agents we lost, AND the veterans that we've cut! And I'm not talking about veterans just taking up space, I'm talking about STARTERS. How in the hell do you replace that kind of loss? Well, you don't in one year, but you start by getting as many picks as possible. You DON'T stay at number two, no matter what.
We aren't going to be good this year (news flash!), and we're probably not going to be good next year. We need picks, and we need them to be GOOD picks. We're going to trade with the Eagles, and I think it's probably about a done deal.
This is basically the best case scenario, and worst case scenario at the same time. If there is a QB that we had targeted, there is a good chance that we don't get him now. While on the other hand, many people I've heard discussing analytics have stated that acquiring picks is the way to go.
I think there's NO WAY we stay at number two. In fact, I don't see HOW we can. Just look at the number of impactful free agents we lost, AND the veterans that we've cut! And I'm not talking about veterans just taking up space, I'm talking about STARTERS. How in the hell do you replace that kind of loss? Well, you don't in one year, but you start by getting as many picks as possible. You DON'T stay at number two, no matter what.
We aren't going to be good this year (news flash!), and we're probably not going to be good next year. We need picks, and we need them to be GOOD picks. We're going to trade with the Eagles, and I think it's probably about a done deal.
I like the Eagles scenario.
That said, I have to believe teams knowing the Rams are taking 1 QB off the board only increases some disparity for teams to try to move up like Dallas or SF. Denver may not have an ideal draft slot per say; but they do have a vet or 2 or 3 that could sweeten up their offer; plus they don't have very many openings they need to fill in terms of how many picks they can part with this year. Last year, they had a 2nd or 3rd string edge rusher we couldn't block (it wasn't Shane Ray and his name escapes me while his performance couldn't) but I get the sense he's a possible bang for the buck our analytics crew might like.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
If Wentz is their guy and Goff was always ours (or vice versa) then nothing has really changed for us other than the soar in value of the number 2 pick.
You can almost hear the buttons on the calculators in the FO thumping.
-
If there is a QB that we had targeted, there is a good chance that we don't get him now.
Actually if we have a QB in mind for #2, there's a 50/50 shot of him being there and he'd be the only reason to stay at #2...
Actually if we have a QB in mind for #2, there's a 50/50 shot of him being there and he'd be the only reason to stay at #2...
Yup. I doubt we'll move down unless another team gets crazy like the Rams. LA had better hope (assuming they draft Wentz) that he turns into the next Aaron Rodgers. And if that comes to pass, I almost feel sorry for Carson. Talk about culture shock- going from Fargo to Los Angeles. I would LMAO if he tells the Rams he doesn't want to play for them- ala Elway and Eli Manning did when they didn't like the team that drafted them.
Bear in mind their true draft spot is 13, they got to 8 in a trade with miami.
& that cost them their second round pick the Rams used to move up to #1 overall. So if we want picks this year, the Eagles aren't very attractive.
#8
2017 1st rounder
Fletcher Cox
Sounds about right. #8 would be a great place to draft Zeke Elliot.
-
This is basically the best case scenario, and worst case scenario at the same time. If there is a QB that we had targeted, there is a good chance that we don't get him now. While on the other hand, many people I've heard discussing analytics have stated that acquiring picks is the way to go.
I think there's NO WAY we stay at number two. In fact, I don't see HOW we can. Just look at the number of impactful free agents we lost, AND the veterans that we've cut! And I'm not talking about veterans just taking up space, I'm talking about STARTERS. How in the hell do you replace that kind of loss? Well, you don't in one year, but you start by getting as many picks as possible. You DON'T stay at number two, no matter what.
We aren't going to be good this year (news flash!), and we're probably not going to be good next year. We need picks, and we need them to be GOOD picks. We're going to trade with the Eagles, and I think it's probably about a done deal.
I like the Eagles scenario.
That said, I have to believe teams knowing the Rams are taking 1 QB off the board only increases some disparity for teams to try to move up like Dallas or SF. Denver may not have an ideal draft slot per say; but they do have a vet or 2 or 3 that could sweeten up their offer; plus they don't have very many openings they need to fill in terms of how many picks they can part with this year. Last year, they had a 2nd or 3rd string edge rusher we couldn't block (it wasn't Shane Ray and his name escapes me while his performance couldn't) but I get the sense he's a possible bang for the buck our analytics crew might like.
I like the Eagles scenario.
That said, I have to believe teams knowing the Rams are taking 1 QB off the board only increases some disparity for teams to try to move up like Dallas or SF. Denver may not have an ideal draft slot per say; but they do have a vet or 2 or 3 that could sweeten up their offer; plus they don't have very many openings they need to fill in terms of how many picks they can part with this year. Last year, they had a 2nd or 3rd string edge rusher we couldn't block (it wasn't Shane Ray and his name escapes me while his performance couldn't) but I get the sense he's a possible bang for the buck our analytics crew might like.
I also like Wentz and Goff enough to take whatever guy LA doesn't take.
-
If the Eagles do trade to 2 what picks should we expect in return ....is moving from 8 to 2 worth much ?
If the Eagles do trade to 2 what picks should we expect in return ....is moving from 8 to 2 worth much ?
Whatever we get, we need to have them throw The Liberty Bell in for good measure, no?
-
Whatever we get, we need to have them throw The Liberty Bell in for good measure, no?
And maybe a few cheesesteaks
-
Whatever we get, we need to have them throw The Liberty Bell in for good measure, no?
And maybe a few cheesesteaks
-
To quote Rocky Balboa: "Absolutely".
Didn't they film the Exorcist in Philly? If so, this franchise could really use the priest.
I welcome the only Defensive Coordinator to earn a Superbowl Ring in New Orleans while understanding Revenge of the Nerds is a sequel. "Come get some!" -
If the Eagles do trade to 2 what picks should we expect in return ....is moving from 8 to 2 worth much ?
I'm honestly not crazy about this, but a way to look at this strictly from pick compensation is the draft value chart: http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp
From 8-2 is a difference of 1200 "points". The thing is they don't have another pick until round 3, pick 77 which is 2015 "points" and pick 79 which is 195. With that in mind it would certainly either take their 2017 first round pick or a player like Cox as noted above. Idk, with what is on the table I don't like trading that far down writing this all out.
I'm honestly not crazy about this, but a way to look at this strictly from pick compensation is the draft value chart: http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp
From 8-2 is a difference of 1200 "points". The thing is they don't have another pick until round 3, pick 77 which is 2015 "points" and pick 79 which is 195. With that in mind it would certainly either take their 2017 first round pick or a player like Cox as noted above. Idk, with what is on the table I don't like trading that far down writing this all out.
Eagles may fall in middle of pack of 2017 draft. read a article we could get their 1st & 2nd next season & still take their 3rd this season. San Fran. has picks but Kap? & Jets maybe coming with Wilkerson/ JT??. Do our leg work, but we should not budge till our clock starts ticking..
-
Actually if we have a QB in mind for #2, there's a 50/50 shot of him being there and he'd be the only reason to stay at #2...
Yup. I doubt we'll move down unless another team gets crazy like the Rams. LA had better hope (assuming they draft Wentz) that he turns into the next Aaron Rodgers. And if that comes to pass, I almost feel sorry for Carson. Talk about culture shock- going from Fargo to Los Angeles. I would LMAO if he tells the Rams he doesn't want to play for them- ala Elway and Eli Manning did when they didn't like the team that drafted them.
Bear in mind their true draft spot is 13, they got to 8 in a trade with miami.
& that cost them their second round pick the Rams used to move up to #1 overall. So if we want picks this year, the Eagles aren't very attractive.
#8
2017 1st rounder
Fletcher Cox
Sounds about right. #8 would be a great place to draft Zeke Elliot.
I would LMAO if he tells the Rams he doesn't want to play for them- ala Elway and Eli Manning did when they didn't like the team that drafted them.
That would be far more likely with us, QB death valley and career killer par excellence.
Only one who actively texted us to come here was crazy as a hoot owl.
-
This is basically the best case scenario, and worst case scenario at the same time. If there is a QB that we had targeted, there is a good chance that we don't get him now. While on the other hand, many people I've heard discussing analytics have stated that acquiring picks is the way to go.
I think there's NO WAY we stay at number two. In fact, I don't see HOW we can. Just look at the number of impactful free agents we lost, AND the veterans that we've cut! And I'm not talking about veterans just taking up space, I'm talking about STARTERS. How in the hell do you replace that kind of loss? Well, you don't in one year, but you start by getting as many picks as possible. You DON'T stay at number two, no matter what.
We aren't going to be good this year (news flash!), and we're probably not going to be good next year. We need picks, and we need them to be GOOD picks. We're going to trade with the Eagles, and I think it's probably about a done deal.
This is basically the best case scenario, and worst case scenario at the same time. If there is a QB that we had targeted, there is a good chance that we don't get him now. While on the other hand, many people I've heard discussing analytics have stated that acquiring picks is the way to go.
I think there's NO WAY we stay at number two. In fact, I don't see HOW we can. Just look at the number of impactful free agents we lost, AND the veterans that we've cut! And I'm not talking about veterans just taking up space, I'm talking about STARTERS. How in the hell do you replace that kind of loss? Well, you don't in one year, but you start by getting as many picks as possible. You DON'T stay at number two, no matter what.
We aren't going to be good this year (news flash!), and we're probably not going to be good next year. We need picks, and we need them to be GOOD picks. We're going to trade with the Eagles, and I think it's probably about a
This would be a bad move, yes we are going to be bad, but if there is a top QB you take them. For some reason Browns fans are under the delusion that trading back is awesome and that picking a QB later is awesome. News flash, we suck at the trade back, news flash #2 no QB we have picked late has panned out. Also, there is no guarantee next year we will be in position to do grab a QB, we may suck just enough so that the good ones are gone. If you are in position to grab the guy now you take him, you don't pass over him so you can get a LB and DB instead. In fact I wouldn't mind us drafting two QBs in this draft, whover at #2 and perhaps on in the 4th.
-
If Wentz is their guy and Goff was always ours (or vice versa) then nothing has really changed for us other than the soar in value of the number 2 pick.
You can almost hear the buttons on the calculators in the FO thumping.
-
This is basically the best case scenario, and worst case scenario at the same time. If there is a QB that we had targeted, there is a good chance that we don't get him now. While on the other hand, many people I've heard discussing analytics have stated that acquiring picks is the way to go.
I think there's NO WAY we stay at number two. In fact, I don't see HOW we can. Just look at the number of impactful free agents we lost, AND the veterans that we've cut! And I'm not talking about veterans just taking up space, I'm talking about STARTERS. How in the hell do you replace that kind of loss? Well, you don't in one year, but you start by getting as many picks as possible. You DON'T stay at number two, no matter what.
We aren't going to be good this year (news flash!), and we're probably not going to be good next year. We need picks, and we need them to be GOOD picks. We're going to trade with the Eagles, and I think it's probably about a
This would be a bad move, yes we are going to be bad, but if there is a top QB you take them. For some reason Browns fans are under the delusion that trading back is awesome and that picking a QB later is awesome. News flash, we suck at the trade back, news flash #2 no QB we have picked late has panned out. Also, there is no guarantee next year we will be in position to do grab a QB, we may suck just enough so that the good ones are gone. If you are in position to grab the guy now you take him, you don't pass over him so you can get a LB and DB instead. In fact I wouldn't mind us drafting two QBs in this draft, whover at #2 and perhaps on in the 4th.
This would be a bad move, yes we are going to be bad, but if there is a top QB you take them. For some reason Browns fans are under the delusion that trading back is awesome and that picking a QB later is awesome. News flash, we suck at the trade back, news flash #2 no QB we have picked late has panned out. Also, there is no guarantee next year we will be in position to do grab a QB, we may suck just enough so that the good ones are gone. If you are in position to grab the guy now you take him, you don't pass over him so you can get a LB and DB instead. In fact I wouldn't mind us drafting two QBs in this draft, whover at #2 and perhaps on in the 4th.
But what if your draft board is not so high for the 2nd QB. Do you reach if you have him as a mid-rounder or do you trade down if you think there are 2-3 midrounders you can live with? I think Wentz is a goner and I also think that in our division Goff is not rugged enough to make it through a season without injury. That in my mind makes him a mid-rounder along with Lynch and Prescott who I think now the Broncos will take in the 1st round.
If Wentz is gone like many analysts believe, I trade down. Goff is too big a future injury risk to take at #2 overall.
-
This would be a bad move, yes we are going to be bad, but if there is a top QB you take them. For some reason Browns fans are under the delusion that trading back is awesome and that picking a QB later is awesome. News flash, we suck at the trade back, news flash #2 no QB we have picked late has panned out. Also, there is no guarantee next year we will be in position to do grab a QB, we may suck just enough so that the good ones are gone. If you are in position to grab the guy now you take him, you don't pass over him so you can get a LB and DB instead. In fact I wouldn't mind us drafting two QBs in this draft, whover at #2 and perhaps on in the 4th.
But what if your draft board is not so high for the 2nd QB. Do you reach if you have him as a mid-rounder or do you trade down if you think there are 2-3 midrounders you can live with? I think Wentz is a goner and I also think that in our division Goff is not rugged enough to make it through a season without injury. That in my mind makes him a mid-rounder along with Lynch and Prescott who I think now the Broncos will take in the 1st round.
If Wentz is gone like many analysts believe, I trade down. Goff is too big a future injury risk to take at #2 overall.
But what if your draft board is not so high for the 2nd QB. Do you reach if you have him as a mid-rounder or do you trade down if you think there are 2-3 midrounders you can live with? I think Wentz is a goner and I also think that in our division Goff is not rugged enough to make it through a season without injury. That in my mind makes him a mid-rounder along with Lynch and Prescott who I think now the Broncos will take in the 1st round.
If Wentz is gone like many analysts believe, I trade down. Goff is too big a future injury risk to take at #2 overall.
Yeah but take a guess how many games he's missed to injury in 3 years starting. Now compare that to Wentz should we choose to include what history tells us. Dan Marino's quick release in the pocket once upon a time sure kept him healthy enough to start a long time in this league. The only time I remembered him getting injured was when he tore his achilles tendon against us.
Why is Lynch a mid rounder when he's better than any QB Denver has right now? QB supply and demand rarely ever cooperates with BPA standards.
-
To quote Rocky Balboa: "Absolutely".
Didn't they film the Exorcist in Philly? If so, this franchise could really use the priest.
-
To quote Rocky Balboa: "Absolutely".
Didn't they film the Exorcist in Philly? If so, this franchise could really use the priest.
Didn't they film the Exorcist in Philly? If so, this franchise could really use the priest.
No... filmed in Georgetown, D.C. Right where the story was set.
Goff is too big a future injury risk to take at #2 overall.
lol... Well, someone had to play the injury card first...
-
I disagree with the notion that trading down is the option if Wentz is taken. I think the Browns didn't want Wentz at all.
Wentz has not been invited to Berea as one of the Browns' 30 allowed visits.
One of the following is true:
1) They ranked Wentz highest but neither invited him to Berea nor conducted private workouts with him.
2) They ranked Goff highest and have "kicked the tires" by conducting private interviews and workouts in Berea with him.
-
1. They don't need to have Wentz in, there are no questions they
would need answered.
2. Goff is an unknown off the field, so far, so they need to know him a lot
better....
http://www.profootballrumors.com/
- Cowboys personnel worked out Jared Goff on Saturday morning in Berkley, Calif. Jason Garrett and Jerry Jones were among the team’s representatives there, and Jones, per Peter King (on Twitter), loved what he saw from the Cal quarterback. The Cowboys pick fourth, and after the Rams’ trade that allowed them to vault from No. 15 to No. 1, and may not be in position to take Goff any longer.
If the Rams take Wentz, and ruin the first round, lol, look for Dallas to trade up with the Browns to get Goff.
Then the Browns can go defense with the first pick.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login