Forum Replies Created
-
Solid deal for Zuerlein given his struggles last year. The #Rams clearly believe in his ability to bounce back.
— Rand Getlin (@Rand_Getlin) April 15, 2016
AgamemnonI'm told it's a one-year deal for Greg Zuerlein and the #Rams, worth a maximum of $3.3M. Base value of $1.25M with $675K guaranteed.
— Rand Getlin (@Rand_Getlin) April 15, 2016
AgamemnonIf the Rams find their franchise QB then the Rams didn’t lose in the trade.
Right.
AgamemnonLot of angst among the STL media, even Wagoner. imo I never liked the move, but early on I figured it was Kroenke’s team, so he gets to do what he wants.
Agamemnonhttp://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-rams-trade-farmer-20160415-story.html
North Dakota State’s Carson Wentz is a ‘no-brainer’ choice for the L.A. Rams
Carson WentzFootball is a game of disguise and misdirection, so fittingly the Rams aren’t disclosing which quarterback they’ll select with the No. 1 pick in this month’s draft, Cal’s Jared Goff or North Dakota State’s Carson Wentz.
This much is known: They’ll take a quarterback, not surprising considering the hefty price tag required to make the unprecedented move from No. 15 to No. 1.
The Rams had private workouts with both players and it’s highly improbable the team hasn’t zeroed in on one. As General Manager Les Snead said Thursday in a news conference formally announcing the trade with the Tennessee Titans, “the hay is in the barn” in terms of scouting the quarterbacks. An interesting wrinkle is that both players are represented by agent Bruce Tollner, son of former USC football coach Ted Tollner.
While the Rams have praised both players and caution against assuming that either is out of the running, some outside experts see the choice as clear: It’s Wentz who should wind up in L.A.
“I really like Jared Goff, but he doesn’t have the upside that this kid [Wentz] has,” said Mike Mayock, NFL Network draft analyst. “So in my mind, it has to be Wentz — it’s not even a question — and I think it’s the intangibles that sold [Rams Coach] Jeff Fisher and Les Snead, on top of the physical stuff.”
Mayock said he was impressed when studying video of Goff after the season and initially thought he was the best quarterback prospect in the class. He changed his mind, though, after watching tape of Wentz.
“At that point, I had never heard of Carson Wentz,” Mayock said. “He was just a name on a quarterback list. I put in his tape against Northern Iowa and when I got done with it I was like, ‘Wow, I hope the next one is just as good, because this was kind of special.’ And the next one was just as good if not better, as was the next one.”
See the most-read stories in Sports this hour >>But there wasn’t a large body of work from Wentz’s 2015 season because he sat out eight games because of a broken wrist. He shined at the Senior Bowl, however, and Mayock said he was clearly the best quarterback there.
Mayock said he was sold on Wentz after attending his pro day in Fargo, N.D.
“I watched him interact with his offensive linemen in the locker room,” he said. “They were giving him a hard time, teasing him, ‘You’re a celebrity. You’re not one of us anymore.’ He was handling it beautifully, having fun with his guys. The head coach, the offensive coordinator, the quarterback coach, all three of them reiterated how much he controlled the line of scrimmage, the fact that he never got less than an ‘A’ in school. His work ethic is off the charts.”
Another draft expert, Greg Cosell, said that taking the 6-foot-5, 237-pound Wentz over Goff would be a “no-brainer.” The former Cal quarterback is an inch shorter and, at 215 pounds, more angular.
Jared GoffJared Goff put up big numbers in college, but draft analysts favor Carson Wentz, who is an inch taller and 20 pounds heavier, over the former California quarterback. (Tom Pennington / Getty Images)
“To me, Carson Wentz’s physical traits are far better than Jared Goff’s,” said Cosell, executive producer of NFL Matchups. “I think it’s reasonable to compare Wentz to Andrew Luck. The reason people struggled with that for so long, and they still struggle with it, is because of the level of competition [at FCS North Dakota State].
“He can make every kind of throw, whether it involves power and velocity or pace and touch. He played in a very multiple system in college, in which he called the protections at the line of scrimmage.”
Cris Collinsworth, color analyst on NBC’s Sunday Night Football, raised eyebrows last month when, in his first-ever mock draft, he predicted that the Rams would trade all the way up to make Wentz the top pick.
He took a drubbing on Twitter for making what many people viewed as a ludicrous projection — then sat back and watched that precise scenario unfold, or at least the trade part of it.
Collinsworth too believes that the Rams will take Wentz.
“When you put the tape of Wentz on, the first thing that jumps out at you other than his sheer size is watching him run,” said Collinsworth, majority owner of Pro Football Focus, a subscription-based analytics service.
“He is a powerful-looking, maybe not Cam Newton, but in that big, strong, hit-me-I-don’t care kind of category. And when I watch him throw, especially on the run, there’s an ease to it. The ball just comes out so easily, it makes you think that there’s a little more he could put on it. Like watching Usain Bolt run — it always looks like there’s one more gear he could hit if he ever had to.”
That said, Collinsworth can understand the appeal of Goff, who last season completed 64.5% of his passes, 43 for touchdowns, with 13 interceptions.
“The decision-making, you’d definitely take Goff, his ability to move around and make plays in the pocket, to see down the field,” he said. “There’s not one thing I don’t love about him. …
“If you said to me, ‘You’ve got to put one of these guys on the field and win a game tomorrow,’ I’d probably take Goff. But if you’re looking at the next 10-15 years, there just seems to be so much upside to Wentz. I’d take him.”
AgamemnonThomas: LA 'splash' factor at work in Rams deal https://t.co/yLfurDmynF via @stltoday
— Jim Thomas (@jthom1) April 15, 2016
AgamemnonThomas: LA ‘splash’ factor at work in Rams deal By Jim Thomas St. Louis Post-Dispatch 9 hrs ago
Will it be tough selling Case Keenum to Los Angeles as your starting quarterback?
The question, posed to Les Snead at the NFL Scouting Combine, seemed to surprise the Rams’ general manager.
“It’s a team sport,” Snead replied at the time. “The goal is to be selling winning — and consistently winning — not necessarily an individual player.”
But actually, it takes more than just winning to hit it big in LA. You’ve got to win and be flashy doing so. So try as they might to deny this was the case, it’s hard to believe the “splash” factor wasn’t at work in Thursday’s dramatic move up to the No. 1 overall spot in the draft.
During a press conference Thursday in Oxnard, Calif., the first question asked of coach Jeff Fisher was whether the move to LA factored into making the trade.
“I figured that would probably be the first question that comes up,” Fisher replied. “We made this decision and this move for this football team. I think coincidentally it’s great timing.
“Great timing. But this is the best thing for our football team right now. So wherever we could’ve been, we would’ve done the same thing. But when you take into consideration what’s ahead for this franchise, and the enthusiasm and excitement, the timing couldn’t be better.”
We’ll never know if the trade would’ve been made had the team stayed in St. Louis. But it certainly fits in with several other moves designed to get some attention in the fickle Los Angeles sports market — from agreeing to be featured on the HBO series “Hard Knocks” in training camp, to opening preseason play at home on ESPN against the Dallas Cowboys.
“It’s LA,” former Rams running back Marshall Faulk said on the NFL Network. “When you look at the Clippers’ star power, when you look at what we saw Kobe Bryant do (Wednesday) night, this fits right in with making a move and making sure that you let people in LA know that the Rams are back.”
The Rams gave up just about everything but the “Hollywood” sign in their new hometown to move up from No. 15 overall in the draft to No. 1 in the mega trade with Tennessee.
Besides that first-round pick, the Rams also are giving up two second-round picks (Nos. 43 and 45 overall) and a third-round pick (No. 76 overall) in this year’s draft. Tennessee also gets the Rams’ first- and third-round picks in the 2017 draft.
Besides the No. 1 pick from Tennessee, the Rams also get fourth- and sixth-round picks from the Titans (Nos. 113 and 177) in this year’s draft.
“They need a quarterback,” said a longtime NFL scout, speaking on condition of anonymity. “And if they think that one of these two guys is the quarterback … It’s a lot to mortgage. I wouldn’t say it’s their only need but obviously it’s their biggest.”
After selecting a quarterback at No. 1 overall on Thursday, April 28 — the first day of the draft — Fisher can head to Disneyland on Friday; the Rams won’t pick again until Day 3 on Saturday.
Maybe he can pull a Mike Ditka and wear a Hawaiian shirt the rest of the draft. That’s what Ditka did as New Orleans coach in 1999 after the Saints basically traded their entire draft to move up to No. 5 overall for Texas running back Ricky Williams.
(The Saints had traded a second-round pick to the Rams for wide receiver Eddie Kennison earlier that offseason, but every other draft pick they possessed in ’99 went to Washington in the trade for Williams.)
“We ransomed the future, and it didn’t work out very good,” said Rick Venturi, now an Indianapolis-based NFL analyst. In ’99, he was the assistant head coach of the Saints.
So if the Rams choose Carson Wentz of North Dakota State, they better hope they’re getting the next Ben Roethlisberger — a strong-armed, big-bodied flamethrower with mobility.
Or if they opt for California’s Jared Goff, he better be the second coming of Aaron Rodgers — a Cal-Berkeley product from a decade ago.
Why? Because this is a Rams team with lots of holes on the roster, more than one would expect for a coach and general manager in their fifth year in the program.
The Rams desperately need an outside threat at wide receiver. Right now, it’s Kenny Britt, Brian Quick, Tavon Austin or bust. There’s no guarantee Stedman Bailey will be playing in 2016 following his gunshot wounds in a drive-by shooting in south Florida last season.
With Jared Cook gone, perhaps Lance Kendricks can take over as the starting tight end, but another tight end is a must anyway.
On defense, the team needs a starting free safety, and has depth needs at linebacker, defensive tackle and, to a lesser extent, cornerback.
After the trade with Tennessee, the Rams have very few draft picks to fill those needs in 2016 or ’17. So they definitely need to hit on some third-day picks.
It also could lead to more bargain hunting in free agency. Or even more emphasis on unearthing undrafted rookies, an area the Rams have done very well with under Fisher and Snead.
But to a large degree, the Rams are gambling on their front-line roster, keeping their fingers crossed that injuries are at a minimum next season.
The trade almost certainly signals the end of quarterback Nick Foles’ short and ill-fated tenure. The Rams undoubtedly will try to trade Foles, but may end up having to release him.
There is a JT video at the link above. Still looking for Frank. 😉
AgamemnonBut, given all that, if the Rams find their franchise QB, the fans will be happy. Even if I don’t like the trade, I can still like the player.[Tavon Austin] 😉
AgamemnonNFL Draft: Do Teams Trading Up In The Draft Get Better Players?
NFL Draft: Do Teams Trading Up In The Draft Get Better Players?
By: Jason Lisk | April 26, 2012 4:45 pm ET
Everyone wants their team to trade down. Teams usually trade up, though, with a specific target in mind, in the heat of the moment of draft day. Sometimes it’s a guy they think represents the last of a tier at a position of need. Other times, it might be a guy that they did not anticipate being available at a spot, who they had rated much higher, and acquiring him becomes a more realistic possibility.
I was curious, though, as to whether teams trading up for a target end up getting a player than those around the pick. I looked back at the 2004 to 2007 drafts, at all draft day trades (via prosportstransactions.com), and found the “trade up” target–the earliest selection that was part of the trade. I excluded all draft day trades that involved a veteran player moving, as those more likely just involved getting a pick that was offered, rather than targeting a specific player while on the clock.
To measure the players, I used the “approximate value” figures at pro-football-reference.com. I compared the trade up target to the career value of the 10 players selected around them (5 in front and immediately after the traded pick).
The results? Yes, overall, players drafted as a result of a trade-up were better than those drafted around them. Of the 81 trades, the player turned out to be better than the average of those around them 44 times, and on average were +2 in career AV.
The best trade up values during this four year stretch saw the New York Jets hitting on 3 of the top 6 values. New York traded up to get Darrelle Revis, David Harris, and Kerry Rhodes. Haloti Ngata was the biggest hit (Baltimore traded up 1 spot to insure they got Ngata), and Steven Jackson of the Rams and Chris Cooley were the other biggest values compared to those drafted around them.
At the other end of the spectrum, first and second round busts that also cost teams multiple picks were the worst values. These include names like John McCargo, Ricardo Colclough, Jarvis Moss, Brady Quinn, Kellen Clemens, and Chad Jackson.
While the overall average showed a slightly positive outlook for trade up targets, there was one segment where they stood out. There were no trade up targets where the best pick was worse than pick #197That is my 200 cutoff, where everybody after that is basically an udfa. imo However, the 24 trades involving a player below pick #100 proved to be quite valuable. Teams trading up in the mid-rounds got a player who was +5 career AV better on average.
I know that number probably means nothing to you, so I’ll put it in perspective. That means that on average, the targeted trade player produced like a pick about a round a half better than where they were actually selected. You probably had a fair amount of teams that saw a guy slip, had him rated much higher, and made a move to get one of the few remaining guys projected higher on their board.
In an area where the draft is very much more miss than hit, teams got starters like Kerry Rhodes, Todd Herremans, Corey Williams, Isaac Sopoaga, Chris Canty, Uche Nwaneri, Rex Hadnot, and Brian Robison.
Compared to the very positive return on the late round trade targets, the first round trade targets were slightly better than average, while the second rounders were actually worse than those around them.
I’ll also say that this analysis is just looking at whether the trade up target turned out to be any better than other players selected in the same area. That’s not the same as endorsing the cost of the trade. For example, I maintain that it is a very bad idea to trade future picks that are a round earlier (for example, a next year’s first to get a second rounder), and the slightly better performance doesn’t offset.
Considering the higher costs associated with most trade ups near the top of the draft as well (often requiring another second rounder or third rounder, or perhaps future picks) I suspect they were losing propositions way more often than not.
The mid to later round trade-ups, though, were a different story. Giving up two 6ths to get into the 5th isn’t missing out on that many opportunities, and teams that were aggressive here did net a good return.
Agamemnonhttp://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25065748/trading-up-for-a-first-round-quarterback-is-rarely-worth-the-cost
Trading up for a first-round quarterback is rarely worth the cost
By Jared Dubin | Staff Writer
February 11, 2015 12:53 pm ETThe Cleveland Browns are reportedly interested in former Oregon quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner Marcus Mariota. If the Browns were to draft Mariota, it would mark the third time in four years they’ve selected a quarterback in the first round. They drafted Brandon Weeden at No. 22 in 2012 (using one of the picks they acquired from Atlanta in the Julio Jones deal) and Johnny Manziel (also No. 22) in 2014. Of course, Weeden is now Tony Romo’s backup in Dallas, while Manziel entered rehab this off-season, so the Browns could soon be on the hunt for a quarterback of the future yet again.
Mariota is widely considered one of the top two quarterback prospects in this year’s draft, along with Florida State’s Jameis Winston. Most mock drafts have Mariota being selected somewhere between first and sixth (our Rob Rang, Dane Brugler and Pat Kirwan have him going sixth, sixth and first, respectively), though the majority of prognosticators have recently been moving him further down in the draft after he spent much of the season as a front-runner for the No. 1 overall selection.
Cleveland currently owns picks 12 and 19 — the latter was part of the haul they received from the Buffalo Bills in last year’s Sammy Watkins trade — so it’s likely the Browns would have to trade up in the draft in order to secure Mariota’s services. A word of advice to the Browns: don’t do it.
Moving up in the draft for a quarterback rarely works out, even if the player you acquire becomes a very good one. The cost to move up in the draft is prohibitive, and because quarterback is one of the least predictable positions in terms of college success translating to the NFL, the risk is also higher than when moving up for, say, an offensive lineman.
Since 2000, 14 teams have moved up in the draft to select a quarterback in the first round. Their targets ranged in quality from Eli Manning to Brady Quinn, and the majority of the deals wound up looking bad for the team that just had to go get their quarterback of the future. Take a look at this:
Toward the right side of the chart, you’ll see some numbers that probably look a bit unfamiliar. “AV” is Pro-Football-Reference’s Approximate Value, which attempts to capture in a single number the seasonal value of a player at any position from any year since 1950. It is of course inexact, but for the purposes of this exercise, it works well enough to provide us a glimpse at the “value” sent out and brought in on draft day trades for first-round quarterbacks.
“AV Out” represents the AV compiled by The Target — the quarterback who the team that moved up in the draft acquired — while he was with the acquiring team. So, for example, even though Jay Cutler has produced an AV of 90 in his career, he only got 30 of that with the Broncos, so that’s the AV we credit them with for the trade in which they acquired Cutler.
“AV In” represents the AV compiled by The Haul — the players the team that moved down in the draft eventually acquired. If any picks included in the initial deal were subsequently traded for other picks or players, I followed those deals to the end of the line. As with “AV Out,” only AV accrued while with the acquiring team was counted. So while LaDainian Tomlinson had a career AV of 158, we’re only counting the 145 he produced while with San Diego as part of the 2001 Michael Vick trade.
“AV Diff” is fairly self-explanatory: it’s the difference between “AV Out” and “AV In,” representing the Approximate Value gained or lost by moving up in the first round to select a quarterback. As you can see, of these 14 trades, in only two of them did the team that moved up to get their quarterback come away with a “win” according to AV.
The best of those would be Denver’s 2006 trade for Jay Cutler, in which the Broncos surrendered the 15th and 68th picks in exchange for No. 11, a deal that resulted in 20 points of excess AV. The 68th pick was acquired as part of a trade the previous year, where Washington gave Denver multiple picks to move into the first round to select Jason Campbell, which didn’t exactly work out that wonderfully. One of those picks turned into Brandon Marshall, another was used to trade for Javon Walker, and a third was used as part of the Cutler deal. By moving down one year and using part of that haul to move up in another, the Broncos accumulated 70 extra points of Approximate Value.
The other trade in which the team moving up in the draft for a quarterback came away with more AV than the team who moved down is Cleveland’s trade in last year’s draft for Johnny Manziel. The three players eventually selected by the Philadelphia Eagles produced 0 AV for them last season, while Manziel, in his disastrous rookie year, managed to produce 1 AV. Who knows what will happen to that calculation in the future, but given Manziel’s performance and current personal circumstances, as well as reports the Browns are considering moving up for Mariota, it does not look great for people expecting the Manziel deal to be a win.
Similarly, though it looked quite good after the 2012 season, Washington’s trade for Robert Griffin III now looks like a boondoggle. The Rams have already acquired 49 points in excess AV from the trade, and if Washington doesn’t retain Griffin after his rookie contract ends, that number will only continue to grow. As the eventual fruit of the deal, the Rams wound up with three defensive starters (Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins, Alec Ogletree), two rotation running backs (Zac Stacy, Isaiah Pead), a solid wide receiver (Stedman Bailey) and their left tackle of the future (Greg Robinson). They still don’t have their quarterback, but they have a deeper team and a far better defense than Washington, which may need to look for a quarterback once again given the friction between Griffin and head coach Jay Gruden.
Even the best player (by total AV) acquired in this fashion, Eli Manning, wound up on the losing end of the deal. The New York Giants would likely make that trade again and again if given the opportunity, considering that Manning has been a picture of health and a consistently above-average quarterback throughout his career. Even leaving aside the two Super Bowl victories, Manning has produced a lot of value for New York. Still, the haul the San Diego Chargers got in exchange for his services — Philip Rivers, Nate Kaeding, Shawne Merriman and Roman Oben (acquired in a trade for one of the picks from the Manning deal) — wound up producing a ton of excess value.
The best of these deals by AV was Denver’s trade for Cutler, and it only resulted in a positive-20 differential. Of the other 13 trades, 10 of them resulted in a negative differential of more than 20 for the team that traded up. Even New York’s deal for Manning wound up producing nearly as much excess AV for San Diego (100) as Manning has produced for the Giants in his career (120), and Manning is the best player acquired in one of these trade-ups. Quite simply, it is very, very hard to win one of these deals if you’re the team that moves up for a quarterback.
Even ignoring the AV calculations, it’s difficult to say that many of the teams that moved up in the draft for their quarterback “won” the deal by acquiring the best player. Taking each deal separately, it’s likely that only the 2004 Giants (Manning), 2006 Broncos (Cutler) and 2008 Ravens (Joe Flacco) could confidently say they came away with the best player in the trade. And even two of those are debatable, as it’s arguable that Philip Rivers has been a superior player to Manning and that Duane Brown has been better at his position (left tackle) than Flacco. The Giants and Ravens won Super Bowls with Manning and Flacco, though, so they resulted in wins for the organization, whether they got the true “best” player or not.
But nobody in their right mind would tell you that Michael Vick was better the LaDainian Tomlinson, or Kyle Boller was better than Vince Wilfork, or Blaine Gabbert was better than Ryan Kerrigan. The draft is a crap shoot, above anything else, and surrendering extra picks and/or players just gives you one less roll of the dice. Even if you think the quarterback you’re moving up to acquire is a sure thing, it’s more likely than not that you’re wrong. Sure things don’t come around very often, and tricking yourself into believing you have spotted the one guy who can change everything is more likely to come back to haunt you than to result in wild success.
AgamemnonLongtime NFL writer Howard Balzer joins CineSport’s Noah Coslov to break down the trade.
Still looking for Frank Cusumano comments. 😉
AgamemnonIke Reese on WIP Philly hates Goff.
Hates Goff, too. That would be a double whammy. Go Raiders. 😉
Agamemnonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTDpo700ntw
Which QB are the Rams Trading Up to #1 to Draft? (And Updated Mock Draft) | 2016 NFL Draft | NFL
AgamemnonNFL Media’s Marshall Faulk reacts to the Los Angeles Rams moving up to the No. 1 overall pick in the 2016 NFL Draft.
AgamemnonYou guys know what I think of the trade. But, that is history now. Let’s hope it works out. Go Raiders. 😉
AgamemnonWell, its quite a bold roll of the dice. So much riding
on making the right choice now.And you just KNOW, that some team is going to get
a great QB somewhere in the late first round or the
second round. You just know it.Do they get a WR in the fourth round?
They need a WR.
Free agent?They lose their first and third next year — do they
rely on Free Agency more next year?w
vThe Rams won’t have a huge QB salary for the next 4 years. They will have more money to keep more of their own FAs(Tavon Austin, spend 12M to keep him for a 5th year) and then they will sign a boat load of udfas. imo
AgamemnonWow. First I’ve heard of it.
Wow.
My gut-first reaction is — Way too much to give up for
a rookie QB not named Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck.w
vNow, we can all live the other side of the RGIII trade.
AgamemnonThey probably won’t say until the draft. Cause, what keeps the Rams in the news? Cause, Goodell ask them not to spoil the tv ratings, I mean the draft. Cause, what if Wentz joins The Church of Scientology?
Agamemnon
