I agree, Ax. I was surprised to find, for example, so many Colts fans that would be interested in a trade-down from #1 to fill other needs the Colts have but who knows what Irsay or the Colts new GM Ryan Grigson actually have in mind? The next three months are just going to continue to get more interesting as time goes on.Nice work serv.
It's very comforting knowing that fans, of every team in the league, are not in charge of things.
With each passing day I'm more of the mind to sit tight, see if the player we covet most is there at #6, listen to any good/great offers from teams wanting to trade up, and then select either BPA, or BTA.
Which is what smart GM's, in our shoes, will do 99.9% of the time.
A mod over at the other place had a good bump of his own thread from November, 2005 and presented some good thoughts on the subject. Here is what he posted...no doubt that's how Colts fans looked at things in 1998 when they had just finished 3-13 and had the first pick. pass on Manning....trade down for more picks!!!!
Of course, the Rams could always draft RGIII, and immediately put him up for sale, so they don't lose out on the extra picks, that will surely come.This may well be playing it too cute, but it just occurred to me that there's an argument for there being no need to trade up to #2. Assume Luck is gone at #1. Both we and the Browns know that the Rams aren't going to take RG3 at #2 (given Bradford, and the Rams' likely interest in Blackmon or Kalil). It's therefore rational for both us and the Browns (and, for that matter, the Seahawks or Dolphins) to not make any offers to trade into the #2 spot--even if it means we get into a bidding war for the #3 spot, the winning team for that spot would almost undoubtedly pay less than if it had traded up to #2.
Interesting, but I doubt it would be worth it to them. First, they can obviously really use some other talented player(s) (either at #2, or after trading down). Second, the value of either Bradford or RG3 is probably higher now than after he lost the competition for starting qb next year. Plus, by overstocking on blue chip QB's that can't both play (notably more wasteful than Cooley + Davis), the Rams would lose a year's worth of play from the equivalent of the #1-2 pick (both in terms of actual playing time, and in terms of length of contract they could trade in '13), and conventional wisdom suggests the value of a pick a year later is one round lower. (I actually think that's far too much of a discount, but that seems to be the market value.)Read an article today that suggested the Rams should take RGIII and keep Bradford, then pit the two of them against each other in training camp next year and trade the loser in the spring of '13 for draft picks.