Doc Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 because unless about 20 other teams come out and announce and sign documentation vowing not to pursue the pick - there will always be other suitors. Further, just because it might not be 12 first rounders a probowl corner, and a starting left tackle, they will still have someone from later in the round very willing to jump at a decent price. no one willing to go huge today, does not mean no one is willing to go after this kid. laaast, even if there are no other bidders, there will always be phantom bidders out there. if real they could just be trying to drive up the price, or the rams could very easily create them. even if the browns tell them to "go pound sand" they can easily draft the guy and open the bidding. someone will give up a first and then some in order to trade firsts. Everything depends on what happens in free agency. If the Skins and Dols go after Manning and Flynn, the Rams' only realistic/desired partner is the Browns because of their 4th and 22nd overall picks. If I'm the Browns, I don't tell them to go pound sand necessarily, I just don't call them back for awhile and wait and see how FA plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I know this is a message board and people express off the wall opinions. That said, I struggle to comprehend why people bother to take positions that have little or no relevance to what will actually happen in the real world. Does anyone think we are actually going to cut a player we just signed to an extension and who has received support from the FO and HC ad nauseum? Then, we argue over this proposition for 9 pages of posts, I really don't get it. I understand talking about even outlandish ideas, like signing Mathis (which I would love), which won't happen because we simply don't attract top-tier FAs. But why spend time discussing something that has less than zero chance at actually happening? How would this signing not set us back another 2-3 years? We'd have to give up at least two 1st rd draft picks and 2 more high picks as well. Fitz isn't great, but he's decent enough. We have ZERO pass rush, need 1 lb, 2 DEs, LT, WR2, another good CB. We can't and don't sign top level FAs, so how are we going to fill all those holes if we give up what is going to require at least 4 of our top picks over the next 2 years. Although guilty of engaging in this discussion if only to point out the same thing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Although guilty of engaging in this discussion if only to point out the same thing.... Oh no, my hypocrisy has been pointed out! I WAS being serious when I asked the question though. I don't agree with the premise of the thread, but I'm bored and felt like getting some insight. I just wonder why the scenario is something to bring up? I'd rather be talking about players we could pick up realistically. I mean do you think really there is a snowball's chance in hell this happens? Cause if you do, then I'm just not reading the things you guys are reading and I'd like to know what I missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Oh look, ANOTHER Fitz sucks thread. *yawn* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Why not TRADE fitz and some picks to Saint Louis for RGIII? St. Louis can always use a good backup behind bradford. And by trading fitz you solve 2 problems. You dump his salary, and you have to give up fewer picks to move up. In fact, throw freddy in too. They can use somebody behind Steven Jackson. Lets think outside the box a little here, fellas. St. Louis isn't going to be interested in paying Bradford's salary as well as Fitz's just to be a backup. Besides, when it comes to deals like these, players aren't usually involved. Teams want draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDaDdy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Oh no, my hypocrisy has been pointed out! I WAS being serious when I asked the question though. I don't agree with the premise of the thread, but I'm bored and felt like getting some insight. I just wonder why the scenario is something to bring up? I'd rather be talking about players we could pick up realistically. I mean do you think really there is a snowball's chance in hell this happens? Cause if you do, then I'm just not reading the things you guys are reading and I'd like to know what I missed. I meant I was guilty not you. It's a ridiculous scenario and I would much much much rather discuss prospects that we might actually get. The Fitz haters will go to any length to start effectively the same thread over and over every day hoping to get it to the top of the popular topics. We should just make a vow now to not even open a thread that could even remotely be related to getting someone we will never get to replace Fitz or just outright bash threads. I look forward to some discussions that are grounded in reality regarding potential picks we might make to fill bigger needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 St. Louis isn't going to be interested in paying Bradford's salary as well as Fitz's just to be a backup. Besides, when it comes to deals like these, players aren't usually involved. Teams want draft picks. FYI St. Louis drafted Fitzy . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.O. Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) I don't know what it would take to get him, however I think the time clock is working against the Bills in regards to the situation involving Fitzpatrick's contract. I do think they have enough picks this year with the extra 4th and fifth round picks to make a move for RG3 if they chose to. Giving up a first and second rounder this year and a first and what ever next year would work provided they signed some solid free agents whether it would be at the DE or WR positions. This probably could be done with the money they saved from cutting Fitz and of course they would have to have a lot of faith in their scouting department for the upcoming draft. Its a gamble but I would go for it. Signing a seasoned QB to tutor the kid should be fairly easy, there's plenty of them out there. It sure would generate fan interest as well as season ticket sales. Yeah I like the idea. The reality of it all is their front office jobs are on the line whether they do or they don't. Lets face it our chances of going to the Super Bowl this upcoming season are slim but then again the forty niners almost did it with a new coach so anything is possible. Interesting topic though. Edited February 29, 2012 by T.O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) You said the Rams held all the cards. They don't since once FA begins and QB's start moving, they may be left holding the bag if the Skins and Dols move on with other QB plans. I agree the Browns should sit tight, because even if they don't talk with the Rams about trading up, the Rams will take the other offers they get and see if the Browns want to match them, so they only have to move back 2 spots instead of 4 or 8. I said the Rams hold all the cards right now... I hear ya, but I think it's all posturing. The truth is right now there is no rush for any team to make a move for the #2 pick. The Rams have all the cards right now, only fools would try to deal from a point of no leverage. ... meaning that of course the Ram's asking price is going to be ridiculous right now. The Dolphins know it -- and so does the rest of the NFL. The Dolphins and Skins (or Bills) would be nuts to try to trade for that pick right now because the Rams have all the leverage. We're saying the same thing. Edited February 29, 2012 by tgreg99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 FYI St. Louis drafted Fitzy . . . And? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
It's in My Blood Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I vote no. Keep our picks are continue to build a solid TEAM. If Fitz doesn't meet expectations next year then you cut him and start looking at next years QB crop. Like it or not, Fitz is our QB for 2012. Every year fans act like theres never gonna be another draft with stud QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Oh look, ANOTHER Fitz sucks thread. *yawn* It's not another "Fitz sucks" thread. It's an "RG3 is a once in a blue moon type of player at the position" thread. No disrespect to Fitz and Lord knows we have bigger problems than a QB, but he's not even close to being in RG3's class. And that's without ever seeing Griffin take a snap in pro ball. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) Everything depends on what happens in free agency. If the Skins and Dols go after Manning and Flynn, the Rams' only realistic/desired partner is the Browns because of their 4th and 22nd overall picks. If I'm the Browns, I don't tell them to go pound sand necessarily, I just don't call them back for awhile and wait and see how FA plays out. Right - unless we call, or Seattle, or the jets, or the team that gets manning, or the eagles, or the chiefs, or the cardinals, or from the playoffs even the broncos or texans If he's your guy- haggling forever over mid round picks could lose him for you. Edited February 29, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I meant I was guilty not you. It's a ridiculous scenario and I would much much much rather discuss prospects that we might actually get. The Fitz haters will go to any length to start effectively the same thread over and over every day hoping to get it to the top of the popular topics. We should just make a vow now to not even open a thread that could even remotely be related to getting someone we will never get to replace Fitz or just outright bash threads. I look forward to some discussions that are grounded in reality regarding potential picks we might make to fill bigger needs. If you feel these discussions are too outlandish for you, why do you partake in them time after time after time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 And? Exactly. That's 2? 3? Coaches and GMs ago. He was a 7th rounder. And he'd be a 10m backup to a 15m qb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 So I was just throwing out a trade scenario, but in all likelihood it would take 4 early round picks to move up to get RG III. Its a steep price to pay, especially for a rebuilding franchise. But havent we been rebuilding for over a decade? Isn't it time to take a chance on getting a franchise quarterback?? This team isn't going anywhere fast without a top notch signal caller. No, Nix/Whaley/Gailey have been rebuilding for about 2.5 years. They are going into their 3rd draft, and have done a good job so far. What you are proposing would potentially derail that progress, and handcuff them from making any major improvements for years to come. Im all about bringing in an elite QB, but I would not sacrifice everything to do so. Keep building the team, and when you have your defense in place, and more talent on Offense, THEN sell out to get your guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I said the Rams hold all the cards right now... OK. Right - unless we call, or Seattle, or the jets, or the team that gets manning, or the eagles, or the chiefs, or the cardinals, or from the playoffs even the broncos or texans If he's your guy- haggling forever over mid round picks could lose him for you. Teams past the Dols are too far down and would involve too much to trade up. Again there is desire from both the Rams and Browns sides to get a deal done because the Rams have access to RGIII and the Browns have 2 picks in the first, with the first one being just 2 spots later, allowing the Rams to get who they want, and for less money. The Rams can't hold out for a king's ransom unless they want to be left holding the bag or being forced to accept a subpar deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 No, Nix/Whaley/Gailey have been rebuilding for about 2.5 years. They are going into their 3rd draft, and have done a good job so far. What you are proposing would potentially derail that progress, and handcuff them from making any major improvements for years to come. Im all about bringing in an elite QB, but I would not sacrifice everything to do so. Keep building the team, and when you have your defense in place, and more talent on Offense, THEN sell out to get your guy. Agree to disagree. That guy will take time to get good enough. By that time your stellar D could be gone. Get that career starter then build around him. Don't build then hope the right guy happens to hit at the right moment hopefully. Just my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Oh look, ANOTHER Fitz sucks thread. *yawn* Yet you always have to comment when you see something that is less than flattering to Fitz. You must be awful bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) OK. Teams past the Dols are too far down and would involve too much to trade up. Again there is desire from both the Rams and Browns sides to get a deal done because the Rams have access to RGIII and the Browns have 2 picks in the first, with the first one being just 2 spots later, allowing the Rams to get who they want, and for less money. The Rams can't hold out for a king's ransom unless they want to be left holding the bag or being forced to accept a subpar deal. I like that 8 is the arbitrary cutoff. Really helps your theory. Maybe they'd be willing to miss out on a Blackmon if a team below includes a WR (like Stevie if negotiations breakdown) or they decide taking 1-2-4 and 1-2 next from a team is better than the pair of 1s this year. Suddenly the browns are right where they started. When you say the rams will have power, how much are you talking? Saving an extra mid pick or? How far do you think they can push the issue? Honestly we don't even know if they are dying for a guy at the top or if they really like a guy that might be around at 10-15 It will almost positively be two firsts.... and some recipe of mid rounders or starters to make up the difference in the packages - would you call negotiating a 3 to a 4 being in a position of power? Edited February 29, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts