For discussion sake, trade down scenario (w/ KC)

[Stel]

First 9 picks could go a lot of ways with probably about 14 potential candidates to be taken in the top 9. For this scenario the draft goes:

1. Tampa Bay - QB Winston
2. Tenn - DT Williams
3. Jax - Edge rusher Fowler
4. Oakland - WR Cooper
5. Washington - DT Shelton
6. NY Jets - QB Mariota
7. Chicago - Edge rusher Gregory
8. Atlanta - Edge rusher Ray
9. NY Giants - DT Brown
10. Phone rings. KC calling. Offers #18 and #49 for our #10. Pretty obvious they want WR Kevin White. Do you take it?

 

[Ramhusker]

Nope, not enough value. They'd have to offer another pick as well.

 

[V3]

Nope, not enough value. They'd have to offer another pick as well.

This isn't the best draft so I'm not sure you can go strictly off of the trade value chart...if that's what you did.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

First 9 picks could go a lot of ways with probably about 14 potential candidates to be taken in the top 9. For this scenario the draft goes:

1. Tampa Bay - QB Winston
2. Tenn - DT Williams
3. Jax - Edge rusher Fowler
4. Oakland - WR Cooper
5. Washington - DT Shelton
6. NY Jets - QB Mariota
7. Chicago - Edge rusher Gregory
8. Atlanta - Edge rusher Ray
9. NY Giants - DT Brown
10. Phone rings. KC calling. Offers #18 and #49 for our #10. Pretty obvious they want WR Kevin White. Do you take it?

In a heartbeat

 

[paceram]

First 9 picks could go a lot of ways with probably about 14 potential candidates to be taken in the top 9. For this scenario the draft goes:

1. Tampa Bay - QB Winston
2. Tenn - DT Williams
3. Jax - Edge rusher Fowler
4. Oakland - WR Cooper
5. Washington - DT Shelton
6. NY Jets - QB Mariota
7. Chicago - Edge rusher Gregory
8. Atlanta - Edge rusher Ray
9. NY Giants - DT Brown
10. Phone rings. KC calling. Offers #18 and #49 for our #10. Pretty obvious they want WR Kevin White. Do you take it?

Guess I am crazy but if I were the Rams I would be running to the podium to select White before one of those teams changes their mind! I will be totally shocked (And, thrilled!) if White is still on the board at #10! While the offensive line is more of a priority to the Rams I think it is a little like Aaron Donald last year. He was too good to pass up and I think White would be too!

 

[Athos]

Nope.

If they want White that badly, we should be getting about half of what ATL got for Julio. At least. White is the new Fitz.

Gimme their 2nd and 3rd and we'll talk.

Otherwise, White is still too good to pass up imo.

 

[OC_Ram]

I fear that we/snisher may overestimate the strength of our current WRs and make a silly move like this. I'd hope they won't.

 

[8to12]

I would do the trade. The trade is fair if using the "trade value chart". However, I would make KC sweat and make them throw in another 4th or 5th rnd pick.

With Fisher running the show, I am not sure a player like White would be utilized properly. It is obvious that we can't see the full potential of the existing receivers on the team because of a below average O-line, inconsistent QB play, and the HC's conservative philosophy. If we were a team like the Colts, I probably go for White without batting an eye. I would almost prefer a top end defender instead of a receiver ; the improved defense would help the offense. I will lean toward the best O-tackle available and trading down and acquiring another 2nd would allow the Rams to do that.

 

[FRO]

I would take that trade and here is why:

- Our biggest need is offensive line. It doesn't matter who is out there at receiver if we can't protect the QB and balance out the pass game with the run. There are 4 guys I am targeting at 18 that would fit our scheme very well. Scherff, Collins, Clemmings, and Erving are my 4 targets.

- With our QB uncertainty due to health we are better served developing a top notch run game. I haven't checked the numbers, but I would have to guess the Patriots and Seahawks were two of the better running teams in the league. If we can run the ball we won't be as dependent on the QB. In order to run the ball we need better line play. I think our RBs are very capable of being very good in the league. If we pick a WR then we need very good QB play to reap the reward of drafting him.

- Britt, Quick, Bailey, and Austin have ability if used correctly. We aren't hurting as bad in the WR department as we are in the line department.

- We could us our second and third round pick and possible trade up for a falling DGB or another linemen. Remember we need 2-3 starting linemen.

 

[Stel]

To me, this is a tough choice. To me, the Rams taking White would be the only reason to say no to the trade. No matter which OL I look at a #10, I can't find one I'd rather have than the #18 and #49 picks.

Scherff - or Flowers and Tomlinson
Collins - or Erving and Fisher
Peat - or Clemmings and Dismukes
Not to mention the non OL options.

White would be the only reason KC would call. That's why it would be a tough decision.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I could see Dallas calling also if a great DLineman or pass rushing end/OLB is sitting there at 10

If White is available at ten I want the Rams to pick him. But according to JT they won't. Fisher believes tht elite WRs are not needed and would point to Seattle and New England as examples.

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

So we draft a WR at 10 and pray another 2nd round or later O lineman pans out...and then we become what?


The Falcons (what has Julio brought them?)
The Bengals (ditto for AJ)
The Lions (double ditto for Megatron)


I'm sorry fellas but I'm going to stick with disagreeing with anyone not going OL at #10 ( imo it's how teams are built, not with WR's)

Time will reveal soon enough.

They tried it with TA, what an utter fiasco that has become. (considering what could have been)

 

[DR RAM]

I would do the trade, but it would be very difficult passing on White, and missing out on our choice between 10 and 18, BUT...an extra high pick in the 2nd round would increase our chances of getting a starter, and it could be two starters. Remember, these are NFL prospects, not assured Pro Bowlers, or even average NFL players.

There is still a lot of talent in the 2nd round. It starts to get sketchy after the third, at a lot of positions.

Tough choice, but yeah, do it.

 

[jrry32]

No. I don't care what the trade value chart says. I'm not about to pass on a 6'3" 215 pound WR with mid 4.3 speed, great hands, and excellent run after catch ability to gain a 2nd.

If they want White, they're going to have to offer more than that. You're going to have to blow my socks off for me to pass on White or Cooper at #10.

 

[jrry32]

So we draft a WR at 10 and pray another 2nd round or later O lineman pans out...and then we become what?


The Falcons (what has Julio brought them?)
The Bengals (ditto for AJ)
The Lions (double ditto for Megatron)


I'm sorry fellas but I'm going to stick with disagreeing with anyone not going OL at #10 ( imo it's how teams are built, not with WR's)

Time will reveal soon enough.

They tried it with TA, what an utter fiasco that has become. (considering what could have been)

We become an explosive offense. OL is not the only correct pick at #10 and there is more than one way to build a football team. I see two of the three teams that you named were in the playoffs last year. The other team, Atlanta, wasn't in the playoffs because of their terrible defense. Not a problem for us.

OL is certainly a priority. But it's something we need to somewhat address in FA. And yes, there will be OLs available in the 2nd and 3rd rounds that can help our team if we don't go that direction in the first.

 

[ramfan46]

I say no to the trade. You could grab White at 10 and still have a shot at Cann dropping to 41 or Irving sitting there. There seems to be plenty of solid OL prospects from the 2nd through the 5th round. I want the team to take the highest evaluated talent available at 10. Even if that wouldn't fit a "need". That's how we got Donald.

 

[Ram_Rally]

I think it's time the rams start drafting quality over quantity

 

[Athos]

They tried it with TA, what an utter fiasco that has become. (considering what could have been)

Prior mistakes shouldn't dictate future decisions.

Otherwise we'd never be picking an OT in the 1st again (Jason Smith and Alex Barron), CB (Tye Hill), DT (Carriker), etc.

You let talent dictate what you do, and if you grade two or three players out at the same level, you pick the area of need 1st.

I don't think there's a lineman in this draft on the level of Cooper and White.

So, it's either Cooper/White if either are there, or trade down. TA was a fiasco because I never liked the purpose behind the pick and the fact he'd never be a legitimate #1 WR. Just a swiss-army knife.

OL is certainly a priority. But it's something we need to somewhat address in FA. And yes, there will be OLs available in the 2nd and 3rd rounds that can help our team if we don't go that direction in the first.

Indeed. Clearly, we are in dire need of some quality VET depth at the Oline positions, especially on the interior. We're blessed with young D talent under control to the point all we need on that side of the ball is a VET DT at a cheaper rate than Langford, and maybe a LB/Dline swingman.

All FA bucks should go to the O.

The Falcons (what has Julio brought them?)

They were neglecting defense and a real running threat long before and long after the Julio trade.

The Bengals (ditto for AJ)

AJ Green has gotten the Bengals to the playoffs and made Dalton look like a far better QB than he actually is.

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

We become an explosive offense. OL is not the only correct pick at #10 and there is more than one way to build a football team. I see two of the three teams that you named were in the playoffs last year. The other team, Atlanta, wasn't in the playoffs because of their terrible defense. Not a problem for us.

OL is certainly a priority. But it's something we need to somewhat address in FA. And yes, there will be OLs available in the 2nd and 3rd rounds that can help our team if we don't go that direction in the first.

I dunno jrry, it's true 2-3 teams I spoke of went to the playoffs...and did nothing (again) I would challenge you or Athos (since he chimed in here ) to give me a real difference maker at WR (a big time player) of a SB winning team lately. I can tell you all those teams had solid o-line play, but zero had top of the leaderboard WRs.

2015 - Patriots - nope
2014 - Seattle - nope
2013 - Ravens (tho I'll conceed Bolden along with the TE Pitta were huge down the stretch)
2012 - Giants - really?
2011- Green Bay - Very debatable (Discount DBL Check Boy was unbelievable)
2010- Saints - Nope (they had great TE play however and a great QB)
2009- Steelers - Not really (tho the team they beat would actually make your best case with # 11)
2008 - Giants - Nope

You guys can advocate for a top WR talent while reasoning you can fill the OL needs in later rounds, it makes great reading, personally I couldn't disagree more with the both of you on this. We need not less than two Zack Martin type difference makers, would like 3 but I know that's unreasonable. (we'll be darn lucky to fill one with a FA that actually pans out)

I'm hoping it's something like this, they've spent enough high picks on the d-line, now it's time to make an equally dominant O Line, I think they may have tipped their hand last year but lost out on Martin. I look for them to pick up where they left off.

Side Note - You were right about Kendall Langford, I don't like the move but you nailed it.

 

[jrry32]

I dunno jrry, it's true 2-3 teams I spoke of went to the playoffs...and did nothing (again) I would challenge you or Athos (since he chimed in here ) to give me a real difference maker at WR (a big time player) of a SB winning team lately. I can tell you all those teams had solid o-line play, but zero had top of the leaderboard WRs.

Come on, my friend. I can't be having this argument with a Rams fan. You have to remember Isaac and Torry.

All those teams had solid OL play? That's extremely debatable. And by extremely debatable, I mean no, they didn't. Seattle is a recent example of a team who didn't have solid OL play.

2015 - Patriots - nope
2014 - Seattle - nope
2013 - Ravens (tho I'll conceed Bolden along with the TE Pitta were huge down the stretch)
2012 - Giants - really?
2011- Green Bay - Very debatable (Discount DBL Check Boy was unbelievable)
2010- Saints - Nope (they had great TE play however and a great QB)
2009- Steelers - Not really (tho the team they beat would actually make your best case with # 11)
2008 - Giants - Nope

Well, lets see...Patriots had Gronkowski and Edelman. Basically the same thing. Seattle had Golden Tate who put up huge numbers in Detroit because Detroit actually throws the ball. Ravens had Torrey Smith, Anquan Boldin, and Dennis Pitta. That's quite a set of weapons. Giants had Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks. Both guys put up 1000+ yards that year. Packers had Greg Jennings, James Jones, Jordy Nelson, and Donald Driver, they weren't exactly hurting for weapons. The Saints had Marques Colston. The Steelers had Santonio Holmes, Hines Ward, Nate Washington, and Heath Miller...that's one heck of a set of weapons. The Giants had Plaxico Burress, Amani Toomer, and Jeremy Shocker. The Colts had Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark.

Seattle and the Saints were the only teams that didn't have multiple good weapons at WR/TE.

You guys can advocate for a top WR talent while reasoning you can fill the OL needs in later rounds, it makes great reading, personally I couldn't disagree more with the both of you on this. We need not less than two Zack Martin type difference makers, would like 3 but I know that's unreasonable. (we'll be darn lucky to fill one with a FA that actually pans out)

I don't advocate for anything general like that. Read my posts on the topic. I've told people that sort of reasoning is bad. I advocate for talent. I'm not going to draft an inferior OL over Kevin White because White is a WR. I want us to draft an OL in Round 1...but I'm not passing on Kevin White or Amari Cooper if they make it to #10 for an inferior player like Brandon Scherff.

If you've seen my mocks, I want a deep and dominant OL as much as the next guy. In fact, if we don't go OL in the first, I'd strongly consider taking OLs in both the 2nd and the 3rd if that's where the value lies.(by strongly consider...I mean I'd most likely do that)

I'm all for a dominant OL but there's more than one way to build a successful team. The Rams shouldn't sacrifice talent for need. You see what happens when they draft talent...like Aaron Donald. We need as many Donalds on this team as we can get. But they do need to make a couple smart moves in FA with OLs. I really hope to see them come out of FA with two solid OLs that are capable of starting. And then, hopefully, they continue to supplement the OL in the draft with another 2-3 talented players.

I'm hoping it's something like this, they've spent enough high picks on the d-line, now it's time to make an equally dominant O Line, I think they may have tipped their hand last year but lost out on Martin. I look for them to pick up where they left off.

Side Note - You were right about Kendall Langford, I don't like the move but you nailed it.

Letting Langford go was a necessary evil.