Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Billy_TParticipantRams need Edge, first and foremost. Probably two of them. But if they trade Ramsey, that pushes CB up there as well. They should be able to net a 1st rounder for Ramsey, so that could go for the best Edge available. With #36, I’d take Banks, if he’s there.
Not a good idea to lock yourself into the above, of course. Keep yer options open. But I like picking for need early, and then going for freakiest athlete/BPA later. Ideally, you get the trifecta. Need/BPA/Freakiest athlete. But I think the chances of that trifecta diminish with each passing round. Even within each round.
Also, if their board has a bloc of guys with similar grades, say five or six, do your best to trade back within that range. I also think they should start trading up later. Trade down early. Trade back up later. Or don’t. It all depends.
(Don’t get too cute, IOW. If a great player is there, at #36, take him.)
Overall, I’d rank their needs like this: Edge (maybe two), CB (especially if Ramsey goes), G, C, TE, S, WR, RB. I want them to find a size/speed/jump ball wideout. Not a strong draft for wr, apparently, but they should be able to find a small school hidden gem late.
Billy_TParticipantYeah. Special athlete. Also not sure why he isn’t get a comp with Donald, instead of Kancey. Adebawore has height and weight nearly identical to Donald. Though neither Kancey or Adebawore are cut like him. Kancey, especially, looks a bit out of shape to me. Which, I guess, makes his 40 even crazier.
I like Maryland’s CB too, Deonte Banks. Ran a 4.35, 42 vert, and 11.4 broad. Maryland’s other corner, Jakorian Bennett, was even faster, at 4.31.
Also like Will McDonald for Edge.
I really hope the Rams shift gears a bit and go for special athletes (“freaks”), and don’t shy away from younger players. They need to get faster, younger, and more athletic, in my view.
Billy_TParticipantIn short, I’m a greedy fan. In no way am I trying to minimize the Super Bowl victory. My fandom goes back to 1966, and I was thrilled.
I just want them to keep winning, and make the best possible decisions to make that more likely. I’m guessing that’s the case for everyone on this forum.
Billy_TParticipantWish the Rams had those options.
Maybe they could have if they had gone 6-11 and 3-14 the past couple of years. Personally, I will take Super Bowl LVI, and proceed from there.
As mentioned before, I don’t think it’s an either/or thing. The Rams could have won the Super Bowl and retained more draft capital and cap space. Other teams have. Hell, the Rams did a better job of things after they won in 1999/2000. They competed for the next two years, and IMO, their strongest team was actually the 2001/2002 version.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by
Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantThe Rams built a Super Bowl winner by drafting and trading for a few elite players, surrounding them with solid complementary teammates, mostly from later rounds and UDFAs.
Their model reset the NFL market, but as Jourdan has mentioned, their own success caused it to reset again, pretty much beyond their own ability to stay in the game. In so many words, they priced themselves out of their own revolution.
So how will they respond this year? They still lack the cap space and the draft picks to seriously alter course, and if they trade Ramsey, that just creates another hole. I really have no idea how they’re going to make this work.
Oh, to be in Chicago’s shoes! The first pick and something like 98 million in cap space. I’d trade down a few spots, pick up another coupla firsts and seconds, draft Jalen Carter or Will Anderson . . . and go crazy on the FA market.
Wish the Rams had those options.
February 25, 2023 at 1:48 pm in reply to: Ramsey to be traded? Floyd to be cut? Roster rumors #143054Billy_TParticipantInteresting. Do they ‘have’ to trade him for cap-relief? I would think not, but I dunno. They’d have to get a lot in return for him, for it to make any sense to me, unless they just have to for cap reasons. w v
I’m no cap expert, but I think they were roughly 15 million over, and by cutting Wagner, they save between 5 and 8 million. They don’t have to cut or trade Ramsey, but he has one of those contracts that do yield a lot of savings if they move him. I think they’d save in the neighborhood of 17 million.
A rookie pool is in the 5 million range, give or take. They want to sign new Free Agents too. Probably need another 15 million for that, at least. So they need to find a way to reduce payroll by another 30 million or so. Guessing.
Floyd is a likely cut/trade guy, and he’d save them a lot too. Restructuring Kupp and Stafford are likely.
Hope a cap guru weighs in, or a good article does the trick, etc.
Billy_TParticipantThe Floyd and Ramsey stuff has to be placed in the “Rumor” category until it happens, but the way the wind is blowing, it sure seems like the Rams are clearing cap space by getting rid of players who seemed to be at the core of the philosophy that won them a Super Bowl. It seemed apparent to me that the Rams were investing in critical superstars, and filling the roster with players they acquired by stockpiling a lot of 3rd day draft picks. Now they seem to be shedding that core, and I don’t know what to make of that. To me, losing Wagner, Floyd, and Ramsey without apparent heirs on the roster is crazy. We are now down to Donald on defense. On offense, there is Kupp and an aging Stafford. And whatever Cam Akers shows up. That’s not a competitive roster. And I don’t get it.
Agree with all of that. Plus, if the Rams are down to just Donald, will he stick around beyond this year? I kinda doubt it.
Kupp turns 30 this summer. Stafford turned 35 this month. Donald seems ageless, so I don’t worry about him, other than the likely retirement. But I’m not getting a sense of this team’s overall philosophy regarding core and complementary players anymore. It seemed pretty clear before their Super Bowl season how they were building toward that. Not this season, though.
Winning the Super Bowl was glorious, and the Rams get major props for all of that. They did it their way, etc. But did the aftermath have to go like this? Couldn’t they have found some way to sustain the winning and the window a bit longer?
Billy_TParticipantbetter to part with an aging player a year sooner than a year later. Bobby Wagner = Clay Matthews I really liked both of these players with the Rams, but LBs >30 are not very effective for that kind of money. always remember his Mike Curtis tackle on the trespassing “JOEFAN” vs the 49ers at Levi. Like ZN stated $5M Good Luck
I don’t know about that “aging player” thing. Wagner had 140 tackles, 6 sacks, and 2 interceptions last year, from an inside linebacker spot. That’s clearly All-Pro production.
When was the last time a Rams ILB put up those kinds of numbers?
Is it really likely he’d fall off the cliff that much from there?
Billy_TParticipantDoes anyone here understand how a March release can have a Post-June 1st cut designation?
NFL rules and regs are weird.
Billy_TParticipantApologies in advance, if I’m just missing the obvious. But, I’m not getting how a player can be released in March with a “Post-June 1st designation.”
How does that work, exactly?
One would think the Rams would have to release Wagner after June 1st to do that . . .
???
Billy_TParticipantFollow up from Turf Show Times. This is, to me at least, clear as mud:
https://www.turfshowtimes.com/2023/2/23/23612725/bobby-wagner-release-rams-salary-cap-2023
Bobby Wagner release is likely post-June 1 designation; what that means for Rams
The Rams were looking to save as much money as possible for right now
By Kenneth Arthur@KennethArthuRS Feb 23, 2023, 5:52pm CST 12 Comments / 12 NewThe Los Angeles Rams made shocking news on Thursday with the report that they agreed to mutually part ways with star linebacker Bobby Wagner, only one year into a five-year contract at $50 million. The news means a lucrative year for Wagner and an opportunity for him to hit free agency again and to cash in on another payday.
The question for Rams are left with: Why now and what does it mean?
Well, the early reports suggest that the Rams aren’t going to release Wagner just yet and that he won’t be a free agent until March 15, like every other free agent. This is in contrast to an example such as Derek Carr, who the Raiders have already cut, allowing the quarterback to already meet with the New Orleans Saints and New York Jets. According to Mike Garafolo, Wagner won’t be officially on the market for three more weeks, which tells us that he’s most likely a post-June 1 designation.
As a post-June 1 designation, the Rams will be able to spread out Wagner’s dead cap penalty over two years instead of one. That’s significant. It means that L.A. will save $8 million against the 2023 salary cap instead of the $5 million that was expected.
It also means that the Rams will carry a more notable dead cap hit for Wagner in 2024, so this is probably a move that signals that L.A. wants to keep building their roster for 2023. This probably isn’t a “give up and rebuild long-term” release, as many initially felt. Or…it could just mean that the Rams are still over the 2023 salary cap ($6.8 million per OvertheCap.com after the post-June 1 release) and they need to clear out as much space as possible.
Wagner isn’t the last domino to fall. Is he the last domino to fall moving out though, and how many dominos are falling in?
Billy_TParticipantFor the record, BW leaving now saves the Rams 5 M.
True, but if I’m not mistaken, the Rams would have saved more than twice that amount if they had cut him after June 1st. By releasing him this early, they not only lost talent and leadership; they said No to millions in potential cap savings.
Also: if they had traded him, the cap savings likely would have been greater too, and they would have gotten draft picks in return.
I honestly can’t see any upside with this move.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantI think now that the Rams have established this pattern of being really, really nice to their players, they should take it to the next level. Ask every player, in a truly non-threatening way, “Where would you like to play? If you could go to the team of your dreams, where would that be? We will do our best to accommodate you. And don’t worry about the cap implications. We got that.”
Of course, first you have to make sure the interview room is just right. Take down all those picture of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun and replace them with pictures of John Denver and Kermit the Frog. Better yet, get Denver and Kermit to show up in person. Make sure you have the best Enya Muzak to soften all the hard edges in the room. Pipe in plenty of lavender, of course. Most importantly, make sure that new batch of puppies is near the player’s chair, and within reach.
It’s also very important to avoid any kind of favoritism, so the offer to place players with the team of their dreams has to include everyone. At the end of the process, once the Rams no longer have anyone on the roster, they can then wait until the end of the draft, and restock the team with UDFAs. It just wouldn’t be “nice” for them to use their draft picks to do that.
/evil grin
Billy_TParticipantThis is a bad sign, imo. Looks like Rams insiders (including Wagner) don’t think the Rams have enough to compete for a championship. And that they don’t think they can address their needs this year.
Agreed.
What do you think about this part, Zooey?
Wagner met with the Rams on Thursday for a conversation that one source characterized as really positive, and truly mutual. If it weren’t, the Rams could have saved more money against the cap by cutting or trading Wagner after June 1.
But that wouldn’t have allowed Wagner to pick his next team or would have meant joining a new team way too late in the offseason to fully onboard with them at his position.
Wagner is closing in on the final years of his career, and with all the uncertainty surrounding the rest of the Rams’ roster, it’s understandable if he wanted to find a situation that felt more “sure.” That’s why this is mutual.
It’s not on the Rams to help a player find his ideal landing spot in his ideal time frame, especially if it costs the Rams serious talent, and in this case, cap room too.
You can’t build a sustainable winner by worrying so much about accommodating individual players and their futures elsewhere. Treat them with respect, definitely. But the Rams should always come first.
Billy_TParticipantObviously, we will get more details down the road, but my first impression of this move is . . . it’s damn stupid. Big mistake. Wagner is an All-Pro who brings major intangibles to the Rams, with leadership and toughness at the top of the list. This is going to hurt their defense big time, and it’s just so unnecessary.
Seems like another case of trying to be “nice” to the player, instead of thinking Team First.
A frustrating start to the offseason already.
Billy_TParticipantQuick follow-up.
Going into his first season with the Rams, Stafford was no sure thing. He had made the playoffs just three times in twelve years, with no wins. Goff had a much better playoff record, and had already made it to the Super Bowl. He was also nearly seven years younger. Stafford was a gamble.
Yes, he had proven himself tough as nails, gutsy as hell, and had a strong arm. But the Rams gave up Goff, two firsts, and a third for a player who had never gone past the first round of the playoffs, and was pushing 34.
I don’t see that as maximizing the idea of “trading for proven veterans.” They already had one at that position.
Billy_TParticipantIn my view, nothing is certain in the NFL, including trading for those “proven” veterans. I’d rather have the draft picks in most cases. Not in all cases. But most. Cuz those vets still have to fit in with the new team culture, and that’s never a guarantee, either. The Rams hit on Ramsey, for instance, and I was for that trade. He was young, which is ideal, and an “alpha dog,” as players like to say. And while his past history was a little shaky, I thought pairing him with Donald would bring out his best . . .
But the Rams have made several other trades for those “proven” vets that didn’t work out, and ended up as one year rentals. Sometimes, for less than a year. And while it’s impossible to prove a counterfactual, I think Goff would have won the Super Bowl in 2021/2022, and the Stafford trade made repeats pretty much impossible.
There is a way to do both/and. As in, selective trading for young, proven vets, and holding on to most of your draft picks. Refrain from trading for much older vets, when you already have solid, much younger talent in house at that position. Don’t do rentals. Plus, when you trade your own players, do so only for good returns, not just to help those players out. Keep ’em if you can’t get a solid return. And don’t outright cut young talent when you don’t have to — like Lewis, Burgess, Henderson, Hollins, etc. Coach ’em up. At least keep them thru their rookie deals.
IMO, the lack of early draft picks has obviously hurt their talent levels, and their cap. It has to. When you’re in cap hell, seemingly year after year, you don’t have the resources to make up for those lost picks. Lotsa cap space? It’s at least possible.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by Billy_T.
Billy_TParticipantHe’s 30.
That’s true. But so is OBJ. Woods and OBJ will be 31 for the 2023 season, and Kupp turns 30 this June.
Rams haven’t had a top 50 pick in six years. That takes its toll. Teams with 1st, 2nd, and 3rd rounders, year after year, can mix it up a bit more. They can hit core “need” areas like the trenches, and take a shot at the freakiest wideouts or running backs. The Rams have basically had to strike gold via FA and late rounders instead. That may include players other teams think have passed their prime . . .
Regardless, I’m guessing it doesn’t happen.
Billy_TParticipantIt’s probably not likely, but I think the Rams would be very wise to re-sign him. They never should have traded him in the first place.
Woods brings so much to the table, as everyone here knows. Great team leader, beloved by his teammates and Rams fans. I didn’t see him play last year, but I’d bet he still has plenty in the tank.
Gotta re-sign him.
Billy_TParticipantIMO, the Rams are lacking in elite athleticism overall. They’re kinda slow, with exceptions. They tend not to draft elite athletes when available, though they will occasionally trade for them, like a Ramsey. Under McVay, they seem to prefer less athletic, but more “mature” players, with other intangibles. Rochell is one of rare draft cases where elite athleticism was a major factor. I’m against cutting him, as I was against the cutting of Terrell Lewis, a freakish size/speed guy. Hollins was also pretty athletic, as was Henderson. Against those cuts too.
I want them to keep Rochell, re-sign Nick Scott, try to keep A’Shawn, if possible. Re-sign Shelton, and attempt to trade Noteboom. If they can’t get a decent return, move him to guard and play Jackson at LT.
If they can get a good draft pick for Floyd — which is probably not likely — I’d trade him too. Draft two Edge guys, a run-stuffing DT, and at least two O-line guys. They have holes at TE and lack a true #2 wr. Hoping they luck out in FA for those positions. A-Rob should have a better season in 2023, but counting on that is probably a mistake.
The Rams should be able to compete for the playoffs, but without a lot of smart drafting and FA work, going further may not be in the cards.
February 16, 2023 at 4:17 pm in reply to: mass shootings & guns … including Trump getting shot at #142953Billy_TParticipantOh, and as you guys know, we’re just one of two nations in the entire world with such an amendment. The other is Yemen. It’s never been necessary in order to purchase weaponry. We obviously did that long before the BOR, and virtually every nation without one allows the regulated purchase and usage of guns, etc.
Our judicial system works largely on “interpretation.” The ideological leanings of individual judges are far more important than they should be under our system. A single judge can effectively screw over large portions of our population, and they often do. It goes without saying that they tend to side with the rich and powerful . . . That includes gun manufacturers.
February 16, 2023 at 4:10 pm in reply to: mass shootings & guns … including Trump getting shot at #142952Billy_TParticipantit refers solely to gun use in well-regulated militias.
I’ve never understood how this part has just “disappeared” from the issue. It seems pretty obvious to me that this amendment is talking about something like the National Guard. And that’s it. That’s the end of it.
Agreed, Zooey. It’s never made sense. But I’d take it a step further from the National Guard. The 2nd was written to protect state militias, whose main mission was to put down domestic rebellion, especially slave revolts. The Constitution places control of those militias at the Federal level. We didn’t have a standing army at the time of the BOR, and a lot of the “founders” hoped we could avoid that with the continued support of state forces, but they became obsolete after the standing army was formed.
I think it can be argued that the 2nd Amendment became null and void once those state militias were abandoned. But, yeah, at the very least, it doesn’t apply to anyone outside the National Guard, which is under Federal control. The Federal government has the legal right to regulate firearms in America, and if the Supreme Court actually followed the Constitution — they rarely do — they wouldn’t have ruled against regulations.
February 15, 2023 at 10:42 am in reply to: mass shootings & guns … including Trump getting shot at #142947Billy_TParticipantImportant recent book on the subject, by Paul Auster:
https://bookshop.org/p/books/bloodbath-nation-paul-auster/18539643
It’s very short, direct, to the point, loaded with stats, and the photos are stunning, running parallel with the text.
So many important takeaways, but one sticks out for me. The truly “originalist” view of The Second Amendment would be that it refers solely to gun use in well-regulated militias. “Bear arms,” for instance, only referred to the military at the time. Private citizens did not “bear arms.” It’s a military-only term. Auster says that linguistic experts can’t find any use of that term outside a military context. It doesn’t exist in reference to private citizens.
GOP-appointed judges went against 200 years of precedent in Heller to change it from a collective “right” to an individual one, and far too many Dems were/are complicit.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
February 12, 2023 at 6:32 pm in reply to: Important book: American Midnight, by Adam Hochschild #142920Billy_TParticipantYeah, the ‘why didnt socialism grow in the US?’ question has a three-part answer, it would seem:
- The massive violent suppression by the powers-that-still-be.
- Massive, never-ending, 24/7, birth-to-death, pro-capitalist propaganda.
- Capitalism itself causes citizens to have little time/energy for study.
w v
Very well put, WV. Concise, dead-on, and tragically true.
Fast forward to today, and the odious immorality behind the continued campaign of lies about “socialism.” I was disgusted by the recent GOP resolution to condemn it in “all of its forms,” and by 109 Dems voting along with every Republican. Cowards.
It’s made me also think about the completely asymmetrical “scorecard” of sorts for atrocities committed by this or that system. We both know that the USSR, for example, wasn’t actually a “socialist” nation, but if we accept that premise, capitalism has to take the hit for the atrocities on its watch too. Not to mention that the internal mechanics and incentives of capitalism naturally lead to those atrocities, which do not exist in socialist theory, at all:
The genocide of hundreds of millions of native peoples, the theft of their lands and resources; slavery; the endless famines, including in 18th century Nepal which left tens of millions dead, and the Late Victorian Holocaust of the late 19th, early 20th centuries in India, China, and Nepal again. The Irish Famine, etc. WWI and most wars in the modern era were/are capitalist wars to extend its plunder and control, to compete for colonies, etc. etc. More than a hundred million dead for that too.
Congress needs to condemn capitalism in all its forms. Of course, that will happen when the sun falls from the sky.
February 12, 2023 at 10:50 am in reply to: Important book: American Midnight, by Adam Hochschild #142913Billy_TParticipantFinished it a coupla days ago. Excellent to the end.
Very little of this was taught in school when I was growing up, and I doubt much of that has changed. It needs to be, but that’s less and less likely with each passing month. In states like Florida, they’re going from a baseline of an already white-washed pseudo-history, to an even more absurd, pro-movement-conservative vision of a world that never was.
Anyway, some more key takeaways. Emma Goldman and Kate Richards O’Hare were American heroes, despite being treated like shit during this era. Jailed for merely voicing their dissent against the war, they both worked hard to improve prison conditions, which were nightmarish at the time — and still are in too many places. The author also does well with Eugene V Debs, another American hero, who stuck to his beliefs despite being jailed; again, for saying America should not enter WWI. One of the most concise descriptions of WWI comes from him (to paraphrase): It was a war of industrial and commercial rivals, nothing more. No one should die for that.
For me, this is a must-read, especially the emphasis on the (successful) state-backed destruction of an American political party, the socialists, in just a few short years. Not to mention the IWW (the Wobblies), and the ongoing escalation of attacks, lynchings, jailings, etc. of Black and Brown peoples.
Connecting the dots, this period seems all too close to what soon happened across the pond in Germany. That’s not hyperbole. Hitler is quoted as being an admirer of certain American policies of that time frame. Ironically, one of main reasons that’s not the historical consensus today in America is the very success of the gaslighting and info-suppression of 1917-1921. The lies carry on.
January 30, 2023 at 6:30 pm in reply to: divisional round aftermath & setting up conference games #142823Billy_TParticipantThe season is too long, and fewer and fewer starters seem to make it this far. Play is sloppier, as are the refs. I think the playoffs this season have been particularly degraded in overall quality.
I know it will never happen, cuz, money. But, if they were really interested in player-safety, as well as producing the optimal “product,” they’d do the following:
No exhibition season. Extend training camp dates instead. Go back to a 14-game season. One bi-week. No Thursday, Saturday, or Monday games. Just Sundays.
Grass fields, only.
Strict rules against helmet to helmet contact, regardless of the player, wherever, or whenever. End the silly rules about taunting. No flag unless it’s the kind of thing that leads to brawls. Same goes for Endzone celebrations. Let the players have fun.
Back to the schedule: Looking at 2023, the players could start the regular season September 10, and end it December 17th. Playoff rounds on the 24th, 31st, and the conference championships on Jan 7th. Super Bowl on January 21st.
The Combine in mid-February. Draft in early April. Training camp runs from early May thru August, with a two or three week break in July.
Players would stay healthier. Individual games would be better. Everyone wins, except on the money front.
January 27, 2023 at 6:05 pm in reply to: Rams tweets … 1/24 – 1/29 (including Rodrigue q & a) #142774Billy_TParticipantAt the start of the season, NFL executives, coaches, and players voted Wagner as the #8 LB in the entire league, and he did nothing this year to tarnish his reputation. PFF has Ramsey rated as the #1 CB. Lions fans who think that their #18 overall pick is too much to give up for both of those guys AND a 5th round pick are simply homers who have no clue.
Agreed. That’s #8 among linebackers, period, right? Not just ILBs?
I can see Ramsey being the best corner too.
Slight tangent. The Rams desperately need a corner to pair with Ramsey, but they also need upgrades at safety. IMO, they need to re-sign Scott, a very good athlete and a player on the rise. Rapp, not so much. Poor in coverage, but solid against the run.
They could move Ramsey to safety, pair him with Scott, and the Rams solve their safety issue, but create another hole at corner. If they can grab a safety in FA, like Jesse Bates (just 26 for next season), they can fix that position and keep Ramsey where he is. Or, they could sign a Jamel Dean, a 4.3 guy with great size (6’1″, 205), 27 for next season.
They should still draft a coupla DBs, regardless of their luck in Free Agency. I’m hoping they go for speed and serious athleticism this year, across the board.
January 27, 2023 at 5:09 pm in reply to: Rams tweets … 1/24 – 1/29 (including Rodrigue q & a) #142772Billy_TParticipantAlso, the trick for me is timing:
I think next off-season for a Ramsey trade would be better for the Rams. However, that’s a bit risky, cuz his “market” might fall a ton between now and then. I’d still rather see the Rams get one more season from him, his intangibles, his cover ability, run support, etc.
(Maybe move him to safety, if they can strike gold with another corner)
Personally, I’d rather see them trade Stafford. But that may be impossible, due to his contract. I’ve forgotten its terms, but I’m guessing the cost would be prohibitive for the Rams and their potential trading partners. Not sure, but I think he’s basically untouchable cuz of the guarantees, etc. If it’s doable, though, he’s the player I’d move.
January 27, 2023 at 5:00 pm in reply to: Rams tweets … 1/24 – 1/29 (including Rodrigue q & a) #142771Billy_TParticipantRams not only will say no, but they laugh at it. They are not giving them up, for something that low. The Lions would have to give us back the 6th pick, along with the 18th pick, this years 3rd round pick, and next years 1st round pick. and Aiden Huchinson, for the deal to work.
What’s funny is that Lions fans are reacting to that and saying they wouldn’t make that trade because Wagner and Ramsey are washed up.
Wagner proved he’s still among the very best inside linebackers in the game. Top Three, easily. Ramsey also had a fine year, and I think he’s arguably Top Three as well. If I’m the Rams, I don’t make that trade, and that’s coming from someone who really, really wants the Rams to trade for high draft picks.
Wagner’s intangibles are off the charts. Leadership, football IQ, mentorship, etc. etc. Tough as nails. Yes, he’s going into his age 33 year, but he’s showing little in the way of decline. Ramsey, into his age 29 year, also seems to be going strong, and has evolved into a strong leader with the Rams. Both are serious “core” guys.
The person who might make the better trade for the Rams? It would have been unthinkable for me to say so even earlier this year, but it’s Donald. He’s entering his age 32 season, but that’s not the issue for me. No sign of slowing down. Every sign that he’s still in his peak window. It’s his likely retirement. If not this season, then next. While he’s basically Mr. Ram, the Rams have traded several Mr Rams in the past, like Gabriel, Dickerson, Bettis, or players close to that, like Hacksaw. And they let Deacon Jones slip away, which was unforgivable to me.
Anyway, I don’t think they’ll trade Donald, or Wagner, but I can see them moving Ramsey. Just don’t include Wagner or any other core guy, unless the other team backs up the truck and pours several first rounders on their heads.
Billy_TParticipantAlso:
Hiring Ryans away from the 9ers is a three-fer. It gives Rams serious coaching talent and removes it from their main rivals. It also gives the Rams insider knowledge about their offense.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 10 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
