whatdrought Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Just now, Ethan in Portland said: 100% agree they are not adding 9 rookies. But 5 of those 9 are in rounds 5 and 6. This is the year to use at least one of those picks on a PK or P. Also they can trade a couple of the picks for higher round picks next year. Looking at what Beane has done in the past, I suspect he will trade the 4th and package with a 5th or 6th to get back into the 3rd round somewhere or move up a few spots in the third round. I wouldn't do it, but Beane will likely do it. One of those 5th or 6th picks should have Michael Turks name on it. Please! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whorlnut Posted February 29, 2020 Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Logic said: No, I say it because you routinely ignored everything I said throughout the thread and repeatedly replied in a way that made it clear you probably weren't even reading what I was typing. And to be fair, I believe it was YOU who told me my strategy "stinks because it's unrealistic". What's good for the goose... Yeah it “stinks” because recent history (facts) support my opinion. Beane trades up, not down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan in Cleveland Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Just now, whatdrought said: One of those 5th or 6th picks should have Michael Turks name on it. Please! Love that idea, but he probably won't make it past the fourth round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, whatdrought said: That’s where my brain is at too. Grab Mimms or the like at 34, an Edge like Weaver from Boise at 44 and then use 54 for a corner or something along those lines. Hang on. I want to be really clear here: Your argument here is that a team is correct to torpedo their future for one year of success where success is defined as a Super Bowl Loss?... Torpedo their future success? They missed the playoffs one year. The franchise hasn’t folded. The Rams were 1/2 teams with a chance to win the Super Bowl in 2018. Every other team, including the Bills, had a zero percent chance of winning the Super Bowl, because they didn’t get there. That’s a success for the Rams, period. If the Bills traded next years first and then lost in the Super Bowl, would you be calling them a failure? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Just now, whorlnut said: Yeah it “stinks” because recent history (facts) support my opinion. Beane trades up, not down. Yep. You got me again. Two whole drafts worth of history is TOTALLY enough to support your conclusion that Beane will never, ever trade down. Nailed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whorlnut Posted February 29, 2020 Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 Just now, Logic said: Yep. You got me again. Two whole drafts worth of history is TOTALLY enough to support your conclusion that Beane will never, ever trade down. Nailed it. It’s the truth until proven otherwise...quit being an #%* about this. You know exactly where I’m going with this. You’re coming across as someone who is arguing just to argue at this point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Defense Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Obviously not someone very familar with the NFL draft!! It would take a lot more than next year's first and the FIFTH round this year to get another first round pick this year!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLEN1QB Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 2 hours ago, whorlnut said: I was talking to another poster about this idea last night and I could see this as something Beane might be willing to do. With the way this team is built and the AFC East finally appearing to be up for grabs, Beane might view this roster being a few players away to win now. Here’s my idea...what if we took the top DE or OT on the board at 22 and trade next year’s first and one of the extra 5ths this year to get back in the bottom of round 1? At that point, we could take either DE or OT (whichever we didn’t address at 22) or WR (whichever one starts to fall). We would then still have our original picks minus the extra 5th. Beane can realistically look at this team as being highly competitive next year and having a low first anyways. It’s not like we should be giving up a top half of the draft first rounder. We could get two guys this year who we can control for 5 years at positions of need. I always love trading back up into the first to get a top tier player but let's see if they get their man in free agency first. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Just now, BringBackOrton said: Torpedo their future success? They missed the playoffs one year. The franchise hasn’t folded. The Rams were 1/2 teams with a chance to win the Super Bowl in 2018. Every other team, including the Bills, had a zero percent chance of winning the Super Bowl, because they didn’t get there. That’s a success for the Rams, period. If the Bills traded next years first and then lost in the Super Bowl, would you be calling them a failure? Yes. Torpedo. They aren’t picking in the first round for like 5 years. They have negative cap room, are saddled with huge contracts that aren’t justifiable, and they have other players of import that they cannot sign because of that. They are the number 1 example of how not to build a team. Losing a super bowl is failure. Getting humiliated in the Super Bowl and having your “historic” offense put up 3 points is an embarrassing failure. Team building success is based on winning the Super Bowl. There’s no participation trophy. They shot their shot and missed. Now they’re up against the grind to keep their window open. The Example of the Bills doesn’t work at all because them losing the Super Bowl next year, with a core of young players, plenty of money, and a thick roster would prove they were on their way to the top of the mountain. The Rams sold out to get there and fell short. Now they’re reeling to cling to any hope they have of not fading into nothing. Totally different situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whorlnut Posted February 29, 2020 Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Mister Defense said: Obviously not someone very familar with the NFL draft!! It would take a lot more than next year's first and the FIFTH round this year to get another first round pick this year!! I guess you didn’t read an earlier post saying it was an example. I realize it would take more. Then I asked what the Ravens gave up to go up and get Lamar but nobody answered that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logic Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, whorlnut said: It’s the truth until proven otherwise...quit being an #%* about this. You know exactly where I’m going with this. You’re coming across as someone who is arguing just to argue at this point... Ever heard the phrase "past performance is not indicative of future results"? To state that what Beane has down in TWO drafts indicates what he's going to do in this draft -- or that anyone who offers an alternative strategy that doesn't match up with what Beane has done in his two previous drafts is being unrealistic -- is an over-simplified and logically inadequate line of thinking. I'm not arguing just to argue. I'm arguing because you posted a thread positing a draft strategy, I replied positing a different strategy, you told me it stinks and backed up that claim with in illogical line of reasoning, REFUSED to read, digest, or consider my explanation for my alternative strategy, and then accused ME of being overly argumentative! If you didn't want anyone to comment on or potentially disagree with your thread, why did you even post it? What's the point of a message board if not to interact? Are only replies that AGREE with your original post allowed? Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 15 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: If losing in the Super Bowl is a failure, why is Kelly in the Hall of Fame? Because they didn’t reach their goal of winning the super bowl. They didn’t succeed. So they failed. Good effort though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Yes. Torpedo. They aren’t picking in the first round for like 5 years. They have negative cap room, are saddled with huge contracts that aren’t justifiable, and they have other players of import that they cannot sign because of that. They are the number 1 example of how not to build a team. Losing a super bowl is failure. Getting humiliated in the Super Bowl and having your “historic” offense put up 3 points is an embarrassing failure. Team building success is based on winning the Super Bowl. There’s no participation trophy. They shot their shot and missed. Now they’re up against the grind to keep their window open. The Example of the Bills doesn’t work at all because them losing the Super Bowl next year, with a core of young players, plenty of money, and a thick roster would prove they were on their way to the top of the mountain. The Rams sold out to get there and fell short. Now they’re reeling to cling to any hope they have of not fading into nothing. Totally different situation. The Rams have $22M in cap space this season. Every single one of their contracts were justifiable. If there’s no participation trophy for losing in a Super Bowl, then why do you give Kelly and those boys credit for going back to lose 3 more times? Is there a participation trophy if you try really really hard over and over and still lose? Sounds to me like they should be called failures too. If the Rams go 10-6 next year and make the playoffs, but don’t win the Super Bowl, does your position change? Do teams that trade first round picks need to actually win the Super Bowl, not just contend, for it to be justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Since we don’t know who will be available at #22 and how their board stacks up, this is futile. Without that knowledge, all this chasing of the proverbial tail is pointless. There is no right answer. It may be best to move up, and it may be best to move back. It may even be best to sit pat at 22. Should we move up or move back cannot be answered here any better than “it depends”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 25 minutes ago, whorlnut said: Exactly. I think it’s silly that some of the posters in this thread think since it’s perceived to be deep, they will all pan out. Right now, three of the hottest names are Jefferson, Claypool, and Mims. However, they probably put themselves out of reach at 54. I highly doubt Beane stays at 54 and watches them get picked if he likes one of them better than Edwards, Shenault, etc. Their record for trading up in the second round is not good. There will be some really good WR talent available at 54...this past year, in a less deep receiver class, McLaurin, Hardman and Metcalf were all there to be had at 54. Don’t panic! I’d probably be looking to trade back and end up with three second round picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Defense Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, whorlnut said: I guess you didn’t read an earlier post saying it was an example. I realize it would take more. Then I asked what the Ravens gave up to go up and get Lamar but nobody answered that. But this is your OP, the question you posed in it, directly (not as 'an example'): "Here’s my idea...what if we took the top DE or OT on the board at 22 and trade next year’s first and one of the extra 5ths this year to get back in the bottom of round 1?" I was responding to that, as that is the base of this thread, what many are responding to. But good to hear that you know better, that that is completely unrealistic. Unless the other GM is really, really bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, NewEra said: Because they didn’t reach their goal of winning the super bowl. They didn’t succeed. So they failed. Good effort though Hey man, if you wanna call Goff, Kelly, Donald, Bruce Smith, Thurman, and Gurley all failures because they didn’t win a SuperBowl, that’s fine with me. That makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whorlnut Posted February 29, 2020 Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 7 minutes ago, Logic said: Ever heard the phrase "past performance is not indicative of future results"? To state that what Beane has down in TWO drafts indicates what he's going to do in this draft -- or that anyone who offers an alternative strategy that doesn't match up with what Beane has done in his two previous drafts is being unrealistic -- is an over-simplified and logically inadequate line of thinking. I'm not arguing just to argue. I'm arguing because you posted a thread positing a draft strategy, I replied positing a different strategy, you told me it stinks and backed up that claim with in illogical line of reasoning, REFUSED to read, digest, or consider my explanation for my alternative strategy, and then accused ME of being overly argumentative! If you didn't want anyone to comment on or potentially disagree with your thread, why did you even post it? What's the point of a message board if not to interact? Are only replies that AGREE with your original post allowed? Sheesh. I read every word of your drivel...again, I don’t agree so you assume I did t take time to read what you wrote. “Sheesh” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 5 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: The Rams have $22M in cap space this season. Every single one of their contracts were justifiable. If there’s no participation trophy for losing in a Super Bowl, then why do you give Kelly and those boys credit for going back to lose 3 more times? Is there a participation trophy if you try really really hard over and over and still lose? Sounds to me like they should be called failures too. If the Rams go 10-6 next year and make the playoffs, but don’t win the Super Bowl, does your position change? Do teams that trade first round picks need to actually win the Super Bowl, not just contend, for it to be justified? And need to pay Jaylon Ramsey top Money, are losing their Kicker and one of their better defensive players (Fowler). If you’re going to argue that Gurley and Goff contracts are justifiable, we’re just not on the same page and I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about. They are failures. They failed to win the super bowl, which is the number 1 goal of every NFL team. Duh!!! They’re universally laughed at for it all these years later. Getting there was an impressive feat, but never winning is a blemish and an asterisk on their success. The Rams not being able to win a Superbowl after doing what they’ve done from a team building standpoint is failure. Yes. And I am confident in saying that as they have set themselves up, they won’t be able to contend consistently for several years until these issues fade into the past. The whole point of it is this- you create a window of contention- not one year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Junction Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 23 minutes ago, whatdrought said: That’s where my brain is at too. Grab Mimms or the like at 34, an Edge like Weaver from Boise at 44 and then use 54 for a corner or something along those lines. Yup. I’d be happier than a pig in slop if we came out of the second round with Mims, weaver/Uche, and idk Bryce Hall. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts