Tag:Sam Bradford
Posted on: April 20, 2010 5:13 pm
Edited on: April 20, 2010 5:53 pm
 

Trading of Carriker opens hole for Suh or McCoy?

Tuesday's trade of defensive tackle Adam Carriker to the Washington Redskins (for only a switch of fifth round picks - 135 & 163) suddenly opens up a gaping hole in the middle of the Rams' defense that could be filled by either Nebraska's Ndamukong Suh or Oklahoma's Gerald McCoy with the first pick.

Previously it had been believed that the Rams could not or would not take either of the defensive tackles with the first pick of the draft due simply to the fact that they'd placed so many dollars already into the defensive line.

By trading Carriker, the former 13th overall selection of the 2007 draft, the Rams, however, don't have the same restrictions.

Though some grade McCoy higher based on his athletic potential, Suh's greater strength, consistency and overall production makes him the logical candidate for the Rams, should they elect to ignore Sam Bradford with the first overall pick.

The move also is intriguing on the Washington end. Carriker's 6-5 frame and great upper body strength make him a natural candidate to play end in the Redskins' new 3-4 alignment.
Posted on: April 20, 2010 8:52 am
 

Advice to Rams: If not 100% on Bradford, trade

As I reported a week ago and Cleveland Browns' general manager Tom Heckert publicly confirmed two days later, the St. Louis Rams are having internal discussions about trading out of the No. 1 pick.

With the several potential suitors (Cleveland, Washington, Seattle, Denver), it is possible that the Rams get the 3,000 "points" as required in the draft pick trade chart every team and media member refers to in these situations.

Far be it from me to offer the Rams, and specifically general manager Billy Devaney, advice on the situation, but I'm going to anyway:

Dear St. Louis Rams,

If you are not 100% sure that Bradford is the answer to your problems, trade the pick.

Even if it means getting less value than the talking heads think you should.

Sincerely,

Rob Rang

Trading out of the No. 1 pick for less than its perceived value will likely generate some negative reaction from other teams and the media.

The reality is, the Rams, winners of only 6/48 games over the past three regular seasons have holes throughout their roster. The 2010 draft is as deep and talented as any we've seen in over a decade. The money saved on not utilizing the first overall pick would cover the extra players.

And for all of the talk about how difficult it is to trade out of the top pick, the last two teams that did so, received more than fair value for their courage -- though they weren't necessarily viewed as the consensus "winners" when making the deal on draft day.

The San Diego Chargers did it the unconventional way in 2004, selecting Eli Manning with the first pick and then shipping he to the Giants for the 4th overall selection, Philip Rivers, and three picks that the Chargers ultimately turned into Shawne Merriman and Nate Kaeding and veteran offensive tackle Roman Oben.

San Diego was involved in the last trade involving the No. 1 pick, as well, trading out of the top spot in 2001 to Atlanta. The Falcons got Michael Vick and the Chargers got the fifth pick, which they used on LaDainian Tomlison, as well as Atlanta's 3rd round pick in 2001 (Chargers selected CB Tay Cody), second round pick in 2002 (WR Reche Caldwell) and veteran receiver/returner Tim Dwight. Having not filled their quarterback need in the first round, the Chargers used their first pick of the second round on some guy named Brees.

There will be those that argue the Rams should simply ignore Bradford and use the top pick on their highest rated player, almost surely Ndamukong Suh or Gerald McCoy.

Unfortunately for St. Louis, having spent high first round selections on the defensive line in 2007 (Adam Carriker) and 2008 (Chris Long) likely precludes the team from doing so.

My admittedly two-cent advice? Capitalize on the best deal you can get and trade out. Let someone else gamble on Sam Bradford's shoulder. Fill other areas of concern with the first round pick(s). And take the quarterback you really want -- Texas' Colt McCoy -- 33rd overall.

Who knows, maybe the short, remarkably accurate, gutty leader is the second coming of Drew Brees, after all.










Posted on: April 19, 2010 7:15 pm
 

Denver emerging as new candidate for No. 1 pick?

Cleveland Browns general manager Tom Heckert publicly announced that his team had held conversations with the St. Louis Rams about obtaining the No. 1 overall pick.

It will be interesting to see if the Denver Broncos are as forthcoming with their internal conversations.

I am told that some of the reason that Denver has been asking for picks rather than veteran players in return for Brandon Marshall and Tony Scheffler is that the club is considering making a significant proposal to the Rams for the first overall pick.

The Broncos feature Kyle Orton as their starting quarterback and recently acquired Brady Quinn, but head coach Josh McDaniels is thought to be very high on Sam Bradford and could see Orton as a stopgap starter until Bradford is ready to take over.

The Broncos own four picks within the draft's top 80 selections, including the 11th overall. Josh McDaniiels has shown a willingness to trade future picks in the past. He traded Denver's 2010 first round pick to Seattle last year for the right to move up in the second round and select Wake Forest cornerback Alphonso Smith.


Posted on: April 17, 2010 9:27 pm
 

Bradford "perfect" in Rams' private workout

With  the draft less than a week away, the St. Louis Rams wrapped up their scrutiny of  several quarterbacks with a private workout for Oklahoma's Sam Bradford on Friday in Norman.

The workout was originally scheduled for Monday, but it was moved up in part to leave more time between the workout and the draft, and because the Rams wanted to see how Bradford would perform the day after a private workout with the Washington Redskins.

Bradford also paid a visit to the Rams on Tuesday along with Notre Dame's Jimmy Clausen and Colt McCoy of Texas.

It was noteworthy that the only Rams personnel working out Bradford were offensive  coordinator Pat Shurmur and quarterbacks coach Dick Curl. General manager Billy Devaney and coach Steve Spagnuolo stayed in St. Louis to participate in draft  meetings as the team sets its draft board in preparations for the  draft.

The Rams had things they wanted to see Bradford do, unlike his March 29 Pro Day when the 53-play script was set up by Bradford and former NFL quarterbacks coach Terry Shea, who had been working with him for two months.

Bradford told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "It  was a little bit different. They come in and obviously they want to go through  some of their reads, and some of the footwork's a little bit different. Some of  this stuff is similar but some of the things I've never done before. But I felt like it went good. I felt like I adjusted fairly quickly and picked up some of the things they were wanting me to do."
 
On a few plays, Shurmur said "perfect" and hit knuckles with Bradford. Agent Tom Condon, who represents Bradford, told the paper, "That's got to
be good when  the coach says 'perfect.' "
The preceeding article was written by Howard Balzer of The Sports XChange.



Posted on: April 16, 2010 12:45 pm
 

Details on possible Cleveland-STL swap for No. 1

I reported here that the Browns were internally discussing making a significant offer to the Rams for the rights to the No. 1 overall pick -- two days prior to Cleveland general manager Tom Heckert announcing that the Browns had spoken with St. Louis about a potential deal.

As I mentioned in the initial report, Cleveland adores Sam Bradford. St. Louis, on the other hand, likes him, but, according to sources, isn't so enamored with him that they won't consider making a trade. 

The specific details of the trade are still being hashed out, but there is fire behind all of this smoke, according to my sources. Both clubs are legitimately interested in trading out of their current spots.

The belief by many is that the Rams must have a similar grade for Jimmy Clausen, which is why they'd consider the trade down. With the 7th overall pick, they'd likely be able to nab the former Irish star there.

However, I'm told the club likes Texas' Colt McCoy better and feel they are in perfect position to nab him with the first pick of the second round, the 33rd overall.

Should the Rams make the deal, they'd likely be focusing on either WR Dez Bryant or even DT Dan Williams with the 7th overall selection.


Posted on: April 13, 2010 1:51 pm
 

Don't count out Holmgren to make a push for No. 1

As much as it would seem a lock for the Rams to just keep the first pick and fulfill their need for a young quarterback with Sam Bradford, league sources tell me that the Cleveland Browns are internally discussing making a significant offer in an attempt to get the first pick and take Bradford, themselves.

Trading out of the No. 1 pick is rarely feasible. The financial constraints that come with having the first pick are so much that teams are usually hesitant to even consider the possibility.

The 2010 draft, however, is unique in several ways.

The talent in this class means that the Rams could truly rebuild their roster quickly if they were to get an offer of 3-4 high draft selections in exchange for the No. 1 pick.

Next, you have a team president in Mike Holmgren who is looking to make a splash... and with five picks among this year's first 100 (7, 38, 71, 85 and 92) he has plenty of flexibility.

Perhaps most importantly, while almost all talent evaluators believe that Bradford is the clear cut top QB and that there is a significant gap between he and the other QBs in this class there is talk that the Rams don't feel this way. They are thought to be quite high on a few of the other quarterbacks of this class, especially Texas' Colt McCoy.

Mike Holmgren and his hand-picked general manager Tom Heckert, however, are thought to be exceptionally high on Bradford.

The most realistic scenario remains the Rams staying put and taking Bradford.

They're remaining at No. 1 is not the mortal lock, I'm told, that having this pick typically is...
Posted on: April 4, 2010 10:49 pm
 

Biggest loser in McNabb trade? Jimmy Clausen

Over the past few weeks there has been increasing talk in the scouting community that the Washington Redskins were going to do something at the quarterback position. With the draft less than a month away, I (and the league personnel I'd spoken with) generally presumed that the Redskins would focus their quarterback search there. With Sam Bradford essentially unattainable , the belief was that Washington would select Jimmy Clausen with the 4th overall pick.

Obviously, Washington went in another direction with their quarterback search, landing Donovan McNabb for their 37th overall selection in the 2010 draft and a conditional 3rd-4th round pick in 2011.

And because the Redskins filled their need at quarterback, Notre Dame's Jimmy Clausen could see a significant drop on draft day.

Considering the big contract signed by Matt Cassell last year, the Chiefs aren't likely to reunite Charlie Weis and Clausen with the fifth pick. Similarly, the Seahawks gave up too much in trade and contract money for they to be likely to use the sixth overall pick on the Irish passer. Cleveland president Mike Holmgren has publicly admitted that he's not a huge Clausen fan. The Raiders won't take him with JaMarcus Russell still drawing checks.

The only obvious contenders in the top ten are the final two teams within it -- the Buffalo Bills at No. 9 and the Jacksonville Jaguars at No. 10. With neither of these clubs guaranteed to take the hotly debated Clausen, his "slip" on draft day could prove even steeper.

The slip from the potential 4th overall choice to No. 9 doesn't sound that significant until you look at the contracts.

Assume for a moment that Clausen would have been the 4th overall choice. He likely would have signed a deal slightly better than the one received by last year's 4th overall pick, Aaron Curry. Curry signed a six year deal for 60 million, including 34 million guaranteed.

The ninth overall pick last year, nose guard BJ Raji, signed a five year deal with Green Bay for 28.5 million, including 18 million guaranteed.
Posted on: April 4, 2010 11:16 am
 

Bradford to Redskins? Not realistic

The Washington Redskins have become a popular candidate to present the Rams with a trade package to move up to the No. 1 pick and select quarterback Sam Bradford if the conjecture of talk radio and the internet is to be believed.

And while the theory stands up in some ways (owner Daniel Snyder is prone to splashy moves and Jason Campbell being signed for only one more year chief among them), the most basic element of any deal is lacking.

The Redskins simply lack the ammunition to make this trade happen.

Washington owns only five picks in the 2010 draft, tied with Baltimore and Chicago with the least picks of any team. They have two very high picks -- the 4th and 37th overall -- but otherwise only have their 4th, 5th and 7th round picks.

According to an NFL Draft trade chart given to me years ago by an NFL executive, the first pick is worth 3000 points. In a year such as this one, where there is clear cut top quarterback likely to be the first pick, some executives feel the pick is worth even more. Washington's 4th overall pick is worth 1800 points. The 37th overall is worth 530. Washington's 4th (103rd overall) is worth 88 points. Their 5th (135th overall) is worth 38.5. Their 7th (211th overall) is worth only 8 points. The collective value of the Redskins' five picks this year is only 2,464.5.

Barring the club packaging all of their picks in a Mike Ditka-loves-Rick Williams type scenario, the Redskins would have to trade future picks as part of the deal, at least their 2011 second round pick.

Considering the varied needs of this team, giving up a hoard of picks in 2010 or in the future simply doesn't make sense -- which is why it won't happen.


 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com