Wagoner: would Rams want offseason do-over?

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Rams Huddle Wagoner: would Rams want offseason do-over?

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #34694
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Would Rams want offseason do-over?

    Nick Wagoner

    http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/24059/would-rams-want-offseason-do-over

    EARTH CITY, Mo. — In light of the St. Louis Rams’ ongoing quarterback issues, it’s easy to point back to the offseason and question whether they did the right thing in trading quarterback Sam Bradford to Philadelphia for Nick Foles.

    Of course, as has become obvious in St. Louis and Philadelphia, that deal hasn’t exactly worked out for either team. On ESPN Insider, Field Yates writes that both teams would probably like a redux if they could get one.

    As Yates pointed out, the deal itself wasn’t necessarily a bad move for the Rams as they were able to unload Bradford’s salary and add a second-round pick next year in the process. But the Rams did unnecessarily give Foles a contract extension that essentially locked him in at a high price next season before he ever took a snap.

    Making matters worse, the Rams also chose to spend the savings on Bradford on a defensive tackle and a linebacker without addressing their needs on the offensive line until the draft.

    And while much of that might seem like a second guess, it’s not. There were plenty who wondered why the Rams weren’t bolstering their offense with the savings from Bradford and didn’t believe it wise to sign Foles to an extension before he played a down.

    #34699
    Avatar photoAgamemnon
    Participant

    Why does eveyone get this wrong. Whether it was a good idea or not to extend Foles, all they had to do if they wanted more money was convert Quinn’s roster bonus. Extending Foles DID NOT stop them from signing anybody.

    Agamemnon

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.