H2o Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...er-to-redskins/ Things just got a bit more interesting if you ask me. I think this sets them up to take eitther Suh or McCoy #1 overall. Call me crazy, but I really think they may pass on Bradford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...er-to-redskins/ Things just got a bit more interesting if you ask me. I think this sets them up to take eitther Suh or McCoy #1 overall. Call me crazy, but I really think they may pass on Bradford. I'm not making the same association, H20. Wouldn't trading for a D-lineman increase the likelihood that they would draft a quarterback? Isn't it more likely that Carriker is a replacement for the soon-to-be-departed Albert Haynesworth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsGuyInMalta Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...er-to-redskins/ Things just got a bit more interesting if you ask me. I think this sets them up to take eitther Suh or McCoy #1 overall. Call me crazy, but I really think they may pass on Bradford. I think PFT's speculation is spot on, methinks they found a trade partner for Haynesworth. I still think they go LT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I'm not making the same association, H20. Wouldn't trading for a D-lineman increase the likelihood that they would draft a quarterback? Isn't it more likely that Carriker is a replacement for the soon-to-be-departed Albert Haynesworth? Now I'm confused. Never mind quarterback. They have McNabb although Clausen to the Redskins rumors persist. More likely they will stick to drafting an offensive tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...er-to-redskins/ Things just got a bit more interesting if you ask me. I think this sets them up to take eitther Suh or McCoy #1 overall. Call me crazy, but I really think they may pass on Bradford. Seeing how Carriker sat out the entire 2009 season with a serious injury, this might be more of a project signing rather than someone that Shanahan is going to pencil right in as a starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Seems to me that Rams regret drafting Carriker and don't think he's worth his contract. It will be nice to have him off the books as they try to sign the #1 pick. I DON'T think this means anything in terms of Haynesworth though....at least not yet. But it does raise an interesting question about which position the Rams pick at #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike In Illinois Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Now I'm confused. Never mind quarterback. They have McNabb although Clausen to the Redskins rumors persist. More likely they will stick to drafting an offensive tackle. H2O I believe is referencing the Rams having options at #1 since they traded Carriker; he's not talking about the Redskins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 H2O I believe is referencing the Rams having options at #1 since they traded Carriker; he's not talking about the Redskins. More cornfusion. Thanks for the Claritin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deep2Moulds46 Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Not even close. Carriker was probably going to struggle to make the final roster this year, and with no "Cap" ramifications, they could dump him, get a VERY little value, and wash their hands of a draft day blunder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I wonder where Haynesworth is going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...er-to-redskins/ Things just got a bit more interesting if you ask me. I think this sets them up to take eitther Suh or McCoy #1 overall. Call me crazy, but I really think they may pass on Bradford. Not at all, in my opinion. Why would the trading of a guy that missed the entire 2009 season change anything? Especially when you consider that the team signed Fred Robbins in free agency, I think the two events are not related. Besides, as I've said many times, I don't see the Rams paying $40M in guarantees to a DT at No. 1... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Now I'm confused. Never mind quarterback. They have McNabb although Clausen to the Redskins rumors persist. More likely they will stick to drafting an offensive tackle. I think he was refering to St. Louis. I think they still go QB and take advantage of the drafts depth at D-line this year at the top of the 2nd round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted April 20, 2010 Author Share Posted April 20, 2010 I'm not making the same association, H20. Wouldn't trading for a D-lineman increase the likelihood that they would draft a quarterback? Isn't it more likely that Carriker is a replacement for the soon-to-be-departed Albert Haynesworth? I think they get rid of a DT because they plan on taking another DT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 I think they get rid of a DT because they plan on taking another DT. Poihaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starrymessenger Posted April 20, 2010 Share Posted April 20, 2010 Not at all, in my opinion. Why would the trading of a guy that missed the entire 2009 season change anything? Especially when you consider that the team signed Fred Robbins in free agency, I think the two events are not related. Besides, as I've said many times, I don't see the Rams paying $40M in guarantees to a DT at No. 1... Don't know how many years Robbins has left in the tank. The wisdom today is that the Rams will pick Bradford but to my mind this is a hugely risky proposition for them. They are the worst team in football and they have a record of drafting as poorly as to the result as the Lions did when Matt Millen was in the saddle. Can the Rams afford to write an 80 million dollar contract for a quarterback who is far from a guaranteed franchise guy? Don't get me wrong, I like Bradford but in spite of his 236 lbs he looks frail to me, like a skinny kid. He was very well protected in Oklahoma, which would not be the case in St Louis and I cringe to think what will happen when the big nasties get after him with a mind to do to him what Colonel Saunders does to a chicken. He goes down and maybe so does the franchise. Could be a blow from which they never recover. Compare that with drafting a sure fire multiple pro bowler at a position of need for them who will likely start for the next 12 years. They will probably do it, but I really wonder if, all things considered, they can afford to draft the quarterback. If they do, they will all be holding their breath whenever he takes a snap. At least SJ will be there to help him (if no one else can). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson from Gamehendge Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 All they gave up to get this guy was a move-down 28 spots in the 5th round??? You people gonna sit here and tell me... A.) We couldn't have done this? B.) We shouldn't have done this? C.) This move would not have helped our (3-4) Ballclub? COME ON?!!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts