If Rams pass on Sam, Clev looks to swoop

[MunKy]

http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2010/3/3/133...e-to-trade-with

 

Rumor: Lions Hope to Trade with Browns or Bills If Rams Pass on a QB

 

Pod_tiny by Sean Yuille on Mar 3, 2010 12:26 AM EST in Draft Comment 49 comments

 

All this time Lions fans have been hoping that the Rams draft a quarterback with the No. 1 pick, allowing Detroit to have its choice of the top defensive tackles -- Ndamukong Suh and Gerald McCoy. There has always been the thought of a possible trade if a quarterback's stock rises from now until the draft and entices a team to jump up to the No. 2 pick. Because that is so uncertain, though, I think fans would much rather see St. Louis draft a quarterback so Detroit is guaranteed to have the opportunity to pick between Suh and McCoy.

 

Based on what FOXSports.com's John Czarnecki said in an article about rumors from the NFL Combine, however, perhaps a trade is more likely than originally thought. The one caveat is that trading down could be dependent on St. Louis not drafting a quarterback, giving other teams the chance to move up and select Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen. Here is what Czarnecki had to say about the rumor:

 

The Lions, who pick second in the first round, have their fingers crossed that the Rams don’t pick a quarterback so they can trade down with either Cleveland or Buffalo, who apparently are in the quarterback market. The thought process is that new Browns czar Mike Holmgren won’t want to lose his favorite quarterback to Washington and new coach Mike Shanahan. The Redskins are perched at No. 4, three spots ahead of the Browns. The Lions really don’t want to spend $33 million in bonus money on a defensive tackle.

 

Let's break down this rumor based on a few things that would have to happen to make it possible.

 

Star-divide

 

1. The Rams would have to pass on a quarterback.

 

Although there have been reports that St. Louis is set on drafting Sam Bradford, Czarnecki's first rumor in the above-linked article is actually about how the Rams would pick Gerald McCoy if the draft was today because Steve Spagnuolo favors him. Obviously a lot could change from now to the draft in April, but it is definitely possible that St. Louis could opt for a defensive tackle, whether it is McCoy or Suh. I think McCoy going first overall would be the best possible scenario for the Lions because it gives them a shot at drafting Suh or trading down. Needless to say, all leverage would be in the Lions' court.

 

2. Detroit would have to be willing to pass on Suh or whoever to move down.

 

Regardless of what the Lions are offered as far as a trade goes (I will get to that in a second), nothing will happen if Detroit is dead set on drafting Ndamukong Suh (or some other player; I'm just using Suh for this example). I mean, there's always the possibility of an offer coming along that is just too good to turn down no matter how much the Lions may want to add Suh to the roster. But if Jim Schwartz and Martin Mayhew view Suh as having the ability to immediately turn around the defense and improve the team in a big way, then it may be tough to trade down and pass on somebody like Suh.

 

3. Detroit would have to be offered a good enough deal to actually move down.

 

The last part of this is pretty simple. There won't be a trade unless the Lions are offered something that is so enticing that they have no problem with moving down. Based on this rumor, which explicitly mentions the Browns and Bills, that means that a deal would have to be worth moving all the way from the second overall pick down to either the seventh or ninth. That would require a pretty nice package of picks and perhaps even some players as well considering neither team has more than one first-round selection (neither has more than one second-round pick, either). The key to a trade that involves moving more than just a couple spots is that the Lions receive enough in return to make it worthwhile and that they don't move too far down where they miss out on somebody that will have an immediate impact. I suppose as long as you draft by the best player available mantra that any player should have an immediate impact, but some of the top players in the draft appear to be on a level of their own.

 

--

 

If the Lions were to trade down, I think it's a given that the ideal partner would be the Seahawks. Seattle has the No. 6 and No. 14 picks, which would be just about the perfect compensation for the second overall pick based on a typical trade value chart. Not only that, but a trade with Seattle would only move the Lions down four spots, giving them a possible shot at a player who has been talked about being picked at No. 2 (like an Eric Berry or Russell Okung). The best part of this deal is that the Lions would go back on the clock with the 14th pick, giving the team a chance to add another high-level talent in the first round.

 

For me, I would be in favor of trading down as long as the Lions don't go down too far and get a good package of picks/players back in return. It would be a little tough to swallow moving down to seventh or ninth without the possibility of coming out of the trade with two first-rounders (in this draft, at least), but if the Browns or Bills throw pick after pick at the Lions to make a deal happen, then it would probably be worth pulling the trigger.

 

[MunKy]

Sounds like people got the impression Holmy wants a top QB in this draft. This was posted during the combine, before DA and Quinn got booted. I will puke if we move down for Clausen, but I'd be syked to get Bradford. I can't be objective though, I am an Oklahoma boy.

 

http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2010/3/14/13...ckaging-a-trade

[Zombo]

I don't see the Rams passing on a QB.

 

Zombo

[CLEVELandMILIDH]

Our First and Rogers for there first and a third

Id be happy to move up and get Bradford but not at the expense off all our picks, and then I'd want to start him atleast halfway through the season. So we be paying Delhomme 7 Mill to backup and Bradford what around 10 mill? Thats kinda scary

[BUNSofSTEEL08]

Our First and Rogers for there first and a third

Id be happy to more up and get Bradford but not at the expense off all our picks

Still a Risk Health wise... Not exactly a No Brainer.

[Rooster Dick]

With all the talk about QB's, I hope Mr. Holmgren doesn't forget this team has no pass catching WRs.

[MunKy]

Still a Risk Health wise... Not exactly a No Brainer.

 

Is Holmgren more likely to use all those draft picks, or will he package a couple to make a move? I saw someone on a board say that Holmgren isn't likely to move up for a QB in the top 5. I am not opposed to getting Clausen (I just don't like the idea) if that is what MH thinks we need.

 

I think many scouts/GMs like Bradford much more than they may let on. Chances Rams actually pass on him is slim.

[rich4eagle]

Our First and Rogers for there first and a third

Id be happy to move up and get Bradford but not at the expense off all our picks, and then I'd want to start him atleast halfway through the season. So we be paying Delhomme 7 Mill to backup and Bradford what around 10 mill? Thats kinda scary

 

 

why would anybody do that to get useless Rogers???????????????????????/

[rich4eagle]

With all the talk about QB's, I hope Mr. Holmgren doesn't forget this team has no pass catching WRs.

 

no matter how good the receivers are if the qB (ala Quinn) throws the ball ten years OB it is incomplete

 

capice.........or stay in denial

[CLEVELandMILIDH]

why would anybody do that to get useless Rogers???????????????????????/

 

Rogers is far from useless, he's pretty good in our gap control defense but if he played on a defense where they wanted penetration from there DT's he'd be a pro-bowler.

[mopaji]

I don't see the Rams passing on a QB.

 

Zombo

Me neither. And I've said it all along, if you're not in the top 3, you may as well trade out of the top 10.

[CLEVELandMILIDH]

no matter how good the receivers are if the qB (ala Quinn) throws the ball ten years OB it is incomplete

 

capice.........or stay in denial

 

agreed, its funny how teams with great QB's can plug late round WR's in and make them look like all pro's.

[Thaak]

Our First and Rogers for there first and a third

Id be happy to move up and get Bradford but not at the expense off all our picks, and then I'd want to start him atleast halfway through the season. So we be paying Delhomme 7 Mill to backup and Bradford what around 10 mill? Thats kinda scary

 

You are basically saying that Rogers is worth the #9 pick overall?

 

By the tradition trade value chart...

 

The #2 overall is worth 2600 points.

The #7 overall is worth 1500 points.

 

 

That is a difference of 1100 points, which is the 14th overall.

The 2nd 3rd round draft pick is worth 260 points.

 

Which is 1360 points. The #9 overall is worth 1350 points.

 

We would be lucky to get a 3rd round value for Rogers. And, Detroit already had him and traded him to us. What makes you think they would want him back?

 

It would be MUCH more likely if we would trade the #7 overall, our 2nd rounder, a 5th rounder, and Rogers for the Rams #1 overall.

 

For Detroit, think Jackson, the #7 overall, our 2nd rounder, for their #2 overall. That makes Jackson roughly worth the #7 2nd round draft pick. Which I doubt we'd be able to get that.

[CLEVELandMILIDH]

I dont care about charts and points, they mean nothing. Teams are more worried about spending 60 million dollars on a unproven player than they are about getting chart value for a high draft pick. Getting a proven stud like rogers and a high 1st to pick up that LT to block for stafford sounds like a good deal for a first and 3rd. And the Lions have new coaches and management since trading rogers, so thats irrelevant

[BigBrownsFan]

I dont care about charts and points, they mean nothing. Teams are more worried about spending 60 million dollars on a unproven player than they are about getting chart value for a high draft pick. Getting a proven stud like rogers and a high 1st to pick up that LT to block for stafford sounds like a good deal for a first and 3rd. And the Lions have new coaches and management since trading rogers, so thats irrelevant

 

That's why you remain Joe Couch Potato while this chart is used extensively throughout the draft process by teams to try and even things out depending on the pick.

[ballpeen]

That's why you remain Joe Couch Potato while this chart is used extensively throughout the draft process by teams to try and even things out depending on the pick.

 

 

I doubt it. At best it might give someone...like us an idea of what it might take, but bottom line, if you want to move up bad enough, you pay the price. If you want to move down bad enough, you price to sell.

 

I wouldn't put to much stock in the trade chart.....I doubt GMs have had it reduced to wallet size for quick reference.

 

[playerjdd]

I dont see us trading up in the top spots due the $$$$. We are actually in a good spot at #7. We can still get a great top pick at 7 and we dont have to break the bank!!!! If Broakford doesnt fall to us then it wasnt meant to be. I truely believe we can get just as solid of a QB in the 3rd as in the 1st, the only difference will be the name recognition.

[Thaak]

I dont care about charts and points, they mean nothing. Teams are more worried about spending 60 million dollars on a unproven player than they are about getting chart value for a high draft pick. Getting a proven stud like rogers and a high 1st to pick up that LT to block for stafford sounds like a good deal for a first and 3rd. And the Lions have new coaches and management since trading rogers, so thats irrelevant

 

There typically are no trades that create as huge a disparity as you are suggesting. The only examples I can think that do this are when a team moves one spot (like the Browns getting a 6th to move back one spot from the Ravens when the Browns took Wimbley and the Ravens took Ngata). If the Browns want to move up to #1 or #2, and use Rogers in the trade, the other team will not also give them a 3rd. If Rogers was worth the #9 overall, someone would have already offered that, and the trade would have already happened.

[Thaak]

I doubt it. At best it might give someone...like us an idea of what it might take, but bottom line, if you want to move up bad enough, you pay the price. If you want to move down bad enough, you price to sell.

 

I wouldn't put to much stock in the trade chart.....I doubt GMs have had it reduced to wallet size for quick reference.

 

That is true, but the trade chart is still used in almost every circumstance. I will wager my entire credibility as a prognosticator, that the above suggested trade, or one of equal imbalance weighted towards the Browns, will not happen.

[hoorta]

That is true, but the trade chart is still used in almost every circumstance. I will wager my entire credibility as a prognosticator, that the above suggested trade, or one of equal imbalance weighted towards the Browns, will not happen.

 

 

Right- you see it every year. Guys come up with these delusional one sided deals. It costs a ton to move up significantly in the first round. Anybody remember Butchie gave up a second rounder to move up one spot to draft Winslow? The Lions might swap with us, but it would cost our first, and next years first also.

 

On a more realistic note, the Browns have three third rounders- and moving up into the low second to grab a qb is a distinct possiblility.

[CLEVELandMILIDH]

We traded down outta 5 down 12 spots last year and got a 2nd and a couple role players, your probably right we couldn't get there 3rd to but were only asking them to move 5 spots not 12 and they get an elite DT, plus they can get a LT at 7 that there probably targeting in the draft. That would give them instant credibility on both sides of the line, I dont see that as one sided

[nobuo]

I don't think Holmgren is going to spend what it's going to take to move up to the #2 spot. That would be counterproductive to what he's been trying to build. Detroit already has gone after two DT's this offseason, they won't want a third, especially not in a deal for their 2nd round pick and especially not one they previously traded.

 

I think we'll see some movement in the 2nd and 3rd rounds with those picks, maybe grabbing a late 1st rounder, but I find it unlikely we move up. As was pointed out by the OP's article, to move that far up you really do need another 1st round pick (Seattle has it) and without it, you'd have to mortgage your future.