Would you rather.....

Trolfes · 04-15-2008, 12:45 PM

draft a long at number two or trade down and take our chances getting gholston? If Miami can't sign Jake Long, and switches attention to Gholston, there should be heightened interest in our pick. If Miami signs Jake Long, we will probably have to stay at our pick and take Chris Long because it doesn't seem that anyone wants to trade up for him.

holt_bruce81 · 04-15-2008, 01:49 PM

If Miami can't sign Jake Long and switches their attention to Gholston, there's really no reason for the Rams to trade down to try and get him are there?

Trolfes · 04-15-2008, 04:55 PM

Well, i meant Chris Long, and just kept saying Gholston. I think that teams will trade up for Jake Long becuase there isn't another rock-solid tackle available. I think that if Miami drafts Gholston then our pick becomes way more valuable. We can trade to a team looking for an OT, like the chiefs, and still come out with Chris Long later. If we trade down to 5, here is how I expect the draft to play out.
1. Miami- Gholston
2. Kansas City-Jake Long
3. Atlanta- Glen Dorsey
4. Oakland- Run DMC
5. STL- Chris Long

The only hitch, i believe, is Oakland taking the son of one of their greatest players of all time

KCJ58 · 04-15-2008, 06:59 PM

Chris or Jake Long is fine with me

freebirdsrams02 · 04-15-2008, 07:52 PM

It seems the Falcons really want Glenn Dorsey. If the Rams talk him up maybe the Falcons will try to swap picks with the Rams. The Falcons have 3 #2 picks and 2 #3 picks, so if they are set on Dorsey they may swap picks and give us a 2 or 3 and we still get Chris Long plus an extra pick. If we stay I like Chris Long first and then Dorsey as our second choice unless we trade back.

Also Chris long will not get past the Raiders.

nfrillman · 04-15-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebirdsrams02

It seems the Falcons really want Glenn Dorsey. If the Rams talk him up maybe the Falcons will try to swap picks with the Rams. The Falcons have 3 #2 picks and 2 #3 picks, so if they are set on Dorsey they may swap picks and give us a 2 or 3 and we still get Chris Long plus an extra pick. If we stay I like Chris Long first and then Dorsey as our second choice unless we trade back.

Also Chris long will not get past the Raiders.

I am not sure of the history on this, but I am pretty sure there aren't many cases of a team trading up 1 spot for a player. If a team is targeting a certain player as a trade up possibility, and the team directly above them is willing to take the offer, that automatically indicates that the team with the higher pick is not going to take said player, because they wouldn't trade down and lose the guy if they are actually interested in the player. So basically, why would a team trade up one spot when that clearly means the team with the higher pick is not interested in the player being targeted by the lower team, meaning the lower picking team doesn't have to trade up to get the guy.

NGSeiler · 04-15-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfrillman

I am not sure of the history on this, but I am pretty sure there aren't many cases of a team trading up 1 spot for a player.

I think the Browns/Ravens did it just two years ago, actually. Ravens moved up one spot to take Haloti Ngata, Browns dropped down a spot and took Kamerion Wimbley.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfrillman

If a team is targeting a certain player as a trade up possibility, and the team directly above them is willing to take the offer, that automatically indicates that the team with the higher pick is not going to take said player, because they wouldn't trade down and lose the guy if they are actually interested in the player.

Not necessarily; it depends on the situation. If both Chris Long and Glenn Dorsey are on the board, the Rams are probably very interested in both and thus would be fine with moving down. I don't think you can automatically infer that there's no chance the Rams take the targeted player just because they're willing to move down. If they like two guys and will still be able to get one of them by dropping down a spot, why not do it?

nfrillman · 04-15-2008, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGSeiler

I think the Browns/Ravens did it just two years ago, actually. Ravens moved up one spot to take Haloti Ngata, Browns dropped down a spot and took Kamerion Wimbley.

Not necessarily; it depends on the situation. If both Chris Long and Glenn Dorsey are on the board, the Rams are probably very interested in both and thus would be fine with moving down. I don't think you can automatically infer that there's no chance the Rams take the targeted player just because they're willing to move down. If they like two guys and will still be able to get one of them by dropping down a spot, why not do it?

Well I was kind of thinking along the lines of Dorsey and Long. I find it hard to believe that the Rams could really convince the Falcons that they would take Dorsery over Chris Long if they are both available. I guess I could see it if there were comprarable prospects at two positions a team needed. Then they might just trade down and take whoever is left, but in the case of the Rams it is pretty obvious that the difference between need at DT and DE is substantial. I think it is more likely for a team to fall in love with either Gholston or Long, the Rams feel good about both of them, and the team that loves one of them trades up to get their guy while the Rams take the other.

Trolfes · 04-16-2008, 01:16 AM

The only way we could convince Atlanta that we are going to take Glen Dorsey is by actually picking him. It is definitely a gamble if we do that, and taking a gamble with the number two is usually not the best idea. But, it would give the rams the upper hand at the bargaining table for the 10 minutes until the falcons picked. Any first day pick in return would be good because we need as much help as we can get. It is definitely a gamble if we try it, but the worst case scenario is we end up with one of the best DT rotations in the league if we keep carriker in there or a solid d-line if we move carriker outside.

at the very least, it would be interesting if we took dorsey

PossumBoy9 · 04-16-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolfes

draft a long at number two or trade down and take our chances getting gholston? If Miami can't sign Jake Long, and switches attention to Gholston, there should be heightened interest in our pick. If Miami signs Jake Long, we will probably have to stay at our pick and take Chris Long because it doesn't seem that anyone wants to trade up for him.

The Rams should take Gholston at #2.

holtfan92 · 04-16-2008, 01:55 PM

Ehh.. not sure Gholston is worth the #2 pick. If we were to get someone at #2 its gonna be long or dorsey.

NGSeiler · 04-16-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfrillman

in the case of the Rams it is pretty obvious that the difference between need at DT and DE is substantial.

But the draft is about more than need and need alone. I've seen some fans and analysts project Dorsey to the Rams even with a bigger need at DE for two main reasons: (1) Dorsey is such an outstanding prospect that you fill immediate need later in order to add him to your team, and (2) drafting Dorsey could allow the Rams to shift Carriker outside, thus possibly filling their need at DE.

For the record, I disagree completely with the latter one, but it's a case the Rams could try to make to another team. And the first reason has certainly been made by other Rams fans in debates I've had with them, so I don't think it's that far-fetched either. Would it convince the Falcons? Who knows? Some Rams fans believe both, so maybe the Falcons would too.

Also, now that there are rumblings about the Saints wanting to move up, maybe the Falcons are more inclined to do so in order to prevent their division rival from getting the player they want.