Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room > NFL Draft Central


Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

NFL Draft Central


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2010, 10:24 AM   #166
Pro Bowl
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,391
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
So if the Rams take Bradford and the Lions take Okung, then that means one of the two best players in the draft will be on the board when our pick comes in: McCoy or Suh. we'd have no problem trading down, although i'd find it very very hard to pass on either of those guys.

Drafting Suh/McCoy, keeping J Campbell, and drafting an OT at 36 >>>> Drafting Clausen at 4 and an OT at 36.

While there are always good players at the top of the draft, we're garaunteed one of Suh, MCCoy, Okung or Bradford. Hopefully the Rams do us a favor and take Bradford, saving us from ourselves.
I would put Berry in there as well. As much as is said about him I still think he's undervalued. He has great football instincts, he's smart and he's fast. He has the brains and talent to make any defense better.
__________________
"Cautiously And Optimistically... Looking Forward To Change"
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 03-01-2010, 10:43 AM   #167
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by 53Fan View Post
I would put Berry in there as well. As much as is said about him I still think he's undervalued. He has great football instincts, he's smart and he's fast. He has the brains and talent to make any defense better.
Berrys a great player, and if we didnt have so many more pressing needs, i'd be all for taking him. since there's not much risk we will take him, i doubt anyone would want to trade up to 4 to get him either. he'll probably go somewhere between 5 and 10, so if someone lower down in the draft wants him, they wont have to trade all the way up to 4 to get him.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 10:50 AM   #168
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
I hate that phrase.
perhaps i should say, "saving us from the ghost of snyders past," then. however, from what i've read, Allen is a STRONG believer in building through free agency. Unfortunately, in Tampa Bay he was always shackled by the stingiest owners in the NFL. I'm somewhat concerned that Allen will suffer from the same "kid in a candy store" syndrome that Gibbs said he experienced in his first season back in the NFL. Snyders generosity and willingness to spend money on the team is a great thing, but it can also be very harmful when combined with a GM who is "overzealous." Shanahan and Allen need to be aggressive in free agency, but they also need to excersice some restraint. hopefully, they won't make the same mistakes that gibbs 2.0 made.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 10:56 AM   #169
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,538
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
perhaps i should say, "saving us from the ghost of snyders past," then. however, from what i've read, Allen is a STRONG believer in building through free agency. Unfortunately, in Tampa Bay he was always shackled by the stingiest owners in the NFL. I'm somewhat concerned that Allen will suffer from the same "kid in a candy store" syndrome that Gibbs said he experienced in his first season back in the NFL. Snyders generosity and willingness to spend money on the team is a great thing, but it can also be very harmful when combined with a GM who is "overzealous." Shanahan and Allen need to be aggressive in free agency, but they also need to excersice some restraint. hopefully, they won't make the same mistakes that gibbs 2.0 made.
Good post, and yes I like "ghosts of snyder's past" much better!
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 11:46 AM   #170
Impact Rookie
 
SOUL-SKINS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 867
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Has anyone heard or is there any rumors of the Skins trading up to #1 to draft Braford? I'm not crazy about that idea but i have a huge man crush on him.
__________________
TODD COLLINS WILL ALWAYS HOLD A SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HEART
SOUL-SKINS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 11:49 AM   #171
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,532
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
So if the Rams take Bradford and the Lions take Okung, then that means one of the two best players in the draft will be on the board when our pick comes in: McCoy or Suh. we'd have no problem trading down, although i'd find it very very hard to pass on either of those guys.

Drafting Suh/McCoy, keeping J Campbell, and drafting an OT at 36 >>>> Drafting Clausen at 4 and an OT at 36.

While there are always good players at the top of the draft, we're garaunteed one of Suh, MCCoy, Okung or Bradford. Hopefully the Rams do us a favor and take Bradford, saving us from ourselves.
I'm with you. If we can't get our favorite OT or our favorite QB, we should scoop up the elite DT who is left over. If we play our cards right, such a choice would smooth our transition to a 3-4 as well as providing greater value for the #4 pick.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 11:50 AM   #172
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,532
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOUL-SKINS View Post
Has anyone heard or is there any rumors of the Skins trading up to #1 to draft Braford? I'm not crazy about that idea but i have a huge man crush on him.
I like Bradford a lot, too. But to trade up, following the draft value chart, would cost us the equivalent of the 12th overall pick in the first round. I think the price is too dear.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 12:13 PM   #173
Registered User
 
BigHairedAristocrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,917
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
I'm with you. If we can't get our favorite OT or our favorite QB, we should scoop up the elite DT who is left over. If we play our cards right, such a choice would smooth our transition to a 3-4 as well as providing greater value for the #4 pick.
Generally speaking, i'm in favor of taking BPA, regardless of position in the first round, especially at the top. Hopefully, we wont have a pick this high for a long time. we need to make the most of it and ensure that whomever we pick is a bonafide stud who will be a consistent pro-bowler. If we're looking at things long-term, you realy can't go wrong selecting BPA.

I understand we added Haynesworth, Orakpo, and Jarmon last year, and our OL is in shambles, but Haynesworth is only going to be here 3 more years. Orakpo, Carter, and Jarmon are going to be LBs in the 3-4. Other than Haynesworth (who'll only be on the field about 60% of the time), we don't have anyone of note on our DL. Drafting McCoy or Suh won't provide the quick fix our OL needs, but it certainly would fill a need on our team AND be good for our team in the long-term.

If Bradford and Okung are off the board, it would require a really sweet deal from another team for me to elect to trade down instead of drafting Suh or McCoy. Hopefully, we can upgrade OT and OG in free agency and give ourselves some more flexibility in the draft.
BigHairedAristocrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 01:11 PM   #174
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,532
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
Generally speaking, i'm in favor of taking BPA, regardless of position in the first round, especially at the top. Hopefully, we wont have a pick this high for a long time. we need to make the most of it and ensure that whomever we pick is a bonafide stud who will be a consistent pro-bowler. If we're looking at things long-term, you realy can't go wrong selecting BPA.

I understand we added Haynesworth, Orakpo, and Jarmon last year, and our OL is in shambles, but Haynesworth is only going to be here 3 more years. Orakpo, Carter, and Jarmon are going to be LBs in the 3-4. Other than Haynesworth (who'll only be on the field about 60% of the time), we don't have anyone of note on our DL. Drafting McCoy or Suh won't provide the quick fix our OL needs, but it certainly would fill a need on our team AND be good for our team in the long-term.

If Bradford and Okung are off the board, it would require a really sweet deal from another team for me to elect to trade down instead of drafting Suh or McCoy. Hopefully, we can upgrade OT and OG in free agency and give ourselves some more flexibility in the draft.
Well put. If you want to reach a bit with the 4th pick in the 4th round to meet a need, fine. But to reach with the 4th overall pick is foolish. At #4 overall you make sure to bring home the best stud you can find, regardless of need.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 06:11 PM   #175
Special Teams
 
PHazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Originally Portsmouth, VA but now Ocala, FL
Posts: 207
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

If Bradford (i dont want him) and Russell Okung (would like him) are off the board when the #4 pick comes around, how in THE SAM HELL do some ppl say no to even lookin at Eric Berry? i think #4 is TOO HIGH to reach for a different OT. @ #4 you wanted to draft the BEST player you can. He might have the overall #1 talent in this whole draft. He said so himself and did it in the most humble of ways. Just came off sounding confident not cocky.

Look what Ed Reed has done for the Ravens defense all these years. Not saying he'll duplicate that production but its feasible. Remember how excited we all were to pair up Sean Taylor and Laron Landry? AREA 51. Well we could put Laron back at SS where he belongs and bring our safeties back to a NO FLY ZONE. And the Saints proved this year that a defense can give up yards but be more effective getting takeaways.

Someone said you can draft berry and move him to CB, forget that. Leave him @ FS and let him be the ball hawk he is. If you're considered a Top 5 pick then why would you be drafted to change position. Thats ludacris.

So say Bradford goes 1, Suh/McCoy goes two, Okung goes 3, that leaves us with Suh/McCoy and Berry as the top prospects on the board. Suh/McCoy are good, but we're transitioning to a 3-4. DL in 3-4 are space eaters. YOU WANT TO WASTE A #4 PICK ON A SPACE EATER? i dont.

Then Hopefully we get Montario Hardesty in the 4th to compliment Clinton Portis. I aint even a Vols fan at all but i would be happy to see the new 2010 Tennesskins! LMAO
__________________
If "The Future is Now" why would we use our #4 Pick on a QB who will spend the 1st year on the bench?
PHazard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 08:16 PM   #176
Impact Rookie
 
SOUL-SKINS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 867
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHazard View Post
If Bradford (i dont want him) and Russell Okung (would like him) are off the board when the #4 pick comes around, how in THE SAM HELL do some ppl say no to even lookin at Eric Berry? i think #4 is TOO HIGH to reach for a different OT. @ #4 you wanted to draft the BEST player you can. He might have the overall #1 talent in this whole draft. He said so himself and did it in the most humble of ways. Just came off sounding confident not cocky.

Look what Ed Reed has done for the Ravens defense all these years. Not saying he'll duplicate that production but its feasible. Remember how excited we all were to pair up Sean Taylor and Laron Landry? AREA 51. Well we could put Laron back at SS where he belongs and bring our safeties back to a NO FLY ZONE. And the Saints proved this year that a defense can give up yards but be more effective getting takeaways.

Someone said you can draft berry and move him to CB, forget that. Leave him @ FS and let him be the ball hawk he is. If you're considered a Top 5 pick then why would you be drafted to change position. Thats ludacris.

So say Bradford goes 1, Suh/McCoy goes two, Okung goes 3, that leaves us with Suh/McCoy and Berry as the top prospects on the board. Suh/McCoy are good, but we're transitioning to a 3-4. DL in 3-4 are space eaters. YOU WANT TO WASTE A #4 PICK ON A SPACE EATER? i dont.

Then Hopefully we get Montario Hardesty in the 4th to compliment Clinton Portis. I aint even a Vols fan at all but i would be happy to see the new 2010 Tennesskins! LMAO
Ummmm....Alright if Bradford and Okung are off the board you'd have to take Suh or Berry if both were avail. You gotta go with Suh first. Safety is a need but not that big of need to take 4th overall. If we didn't have Laundry (not that he's playing well) i'd say yes, def. take Berry. I still have faith in the Dirty 30.
__________________
TODD COLLINS WILL ALWAYS HOLD A SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HEART
SOUL-SKINS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 08:53 PM   #177
Special Teams
 
PHazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Originally Portsmouth, VA but now Ocala, FL
Posts: 207
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOUL-SKINS View Post
Ummmm....Alright if Bradford and Okung are off the board you'd have to take Suh or Berry if both were avail. You gotta go with Suh first. Safety is a need but not that big of need to take 4th overall. If we didn't have Laundry (not that he's playing well) i'd say yes, def. take Berry. I still have faith in the Dirty 30.
Did you read what i wrote? I have faith in Landry as well. But my faith in him jumps a good 85% if playing at SS. Berry is a natural FS who makes excellent reads and knows how to play the ball. If we have a secondary that has Landry close to the Line delivering hits/run support, AND Eric Berry AND DeAngelo Hall bein ballhawks that would improve our defense/takeaways immediately. in a 3-4 Suh would be a DE, n in a 3-4, the DL take up as many blocks as they can so the LB can make plays. Its not an impact position. Berry would benefit us more so than Suh in our new Defense.
__________________
If "The Future is Now" why would we use our #4 Pick on a QB who will spend the 1st year on the bench?
PHazard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 09:49 PM   #178
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,532
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

^ in the situation where the #1 QB and #1 OT are gone at pick #4,

1) Berry is a good choice. It seems that he will make an excellent safety. As you describe he is tempting to pick.

2) Nonetheless Suh or McCoy might, that is might, give the best value for the pick. In our new 3-4 front, one could argue that AH would make a disruptive big end and might be happier there anyway. Jarmon could beef up a bit and play the other end. McCoy or Suh would be left the nose tackle slot. Certainly neither one of those guys is a classic big clogger like Wilfork, but that's ok. Instead the drafted nose tackle could play a quick, disruptive, one-gap style like Jay Ratliff. Suh is 300 lbs.; McCoy is 297 lbs.; Ratliff is 302 lbs. Our new nose tackle could end up being a super-Ratliff. If we are to switch to a 3-4, wouldn't it be awesome to have a Ratliff (or better) working disruptive magic in our middle?
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 10:09 PM   #179
Pro Bowl
 
SirClintonPortis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,052
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
2) Nonetheless Suh or McCoy might, that is might, give the best value for the pick. In our new 3-4 front, one could argue that AH would make a disruptive big end and might be happier there anyway. Jarmon could beef up a bit and play the other end.
I think it's a lock the Phillip Daniels is going to man that LDE spot. Monty and/or Golston may be shipped out and they will look for another big DE/DT to put behind him.
SirClintonPortis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2010, 10:10 PM   #180
Playmaker
 
Defensewins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,847
Re: Schefter: "There's no way" the Rams won't pick Sam Bradford at No. 1

IF Okung is gone and Suh or McCoy are steill there you take one of them. No question.
Bradford is over rated.
Defensewins is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.31984 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25