Trade idea - Page 2

Zbikowski_9 · 04-18-2008, 09:03 PM

Ok, so i am a complete idiot for saying it is possible that Chris Long could fall to 5, now Scott has him going at 6 - so is he an idiot too?

Just all those people that wrote me off acting like they know everything - now more and more people are suggesting he could go later. Not realy the experts you thought you were: Crickett, Raidernation, The Legend ect

Crickett · 04-29-2008, 08:56 AM

Yeah, I guess I was dead wrong there. Chris Long's plummet in the draft was completely unprecendented. I guess I just haven't figured this NFL draft thing out. He was right there.

Zbikowski_9 · 05-02-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crickett

Yeah, I guess I was dead wrong there. Chris Long's plummet in the draft was completely unprecendented. I guess I just haven't figured this NFL draft thing out. He was right there.

I never said it was probable, i said it was possible and it DEFINATLY was probable. Miami locked up Jake Long prior to the draft and Chris Long was not even second on their board and they made no effort to sigh Chris Long.

The Rams juggled Long and Dorsey and it was a 50-50 call, if they went the other way Atlanta definatly would have passed, Oakland had McFadden on top of their board and even wanted to trade up to make sure they got him if the Jets traded up. That would have left him at no. 5.

Now it is easy to be a smart a ss and come here after the draft but you ridiculed me that the thought of Long falling to 5 was ridiculas (sp) when it could have easily happened.

Crickett · 05-02-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zbikowski_9

I never said it was probable, i said it was possible and it DEFINATLY was probable. Miami locked up Jake Long prior to the draft and Chris Long was not even second on their board and they made no effort to sigh Chris Long.

The Rams juggled Long and Dorsey and it was a 50-50 call, if they went the other way Atlanta definatly would have passed, Oakland had McFadden on top of their board and even wanted to trade up to make sure they got him if the Jets traded up. That would have left him at no. 5.

Now it is easy to be a smart a ss and come here after the draft but you ridiculed me that the thought of Long falling to 5 was ridiculas (sp) when it could have easily happened.

Long falling to 5 was ridiculous. Which is why when he didn't go #1, he dropped all the way down to #2. And you're right, it is easy to be a smart a ss and come in here AFTER YOU'VE BEEN PROVEN RIGHT.

I mean, it didn't stop you with you incontrovertable evidence of Scott had it happen in a mock draft.

BamaFalcon59 · 05-02-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crickett

I mean, it didn't stop you with you incontrovertable evidence of Scott had it happen in a mock draft.

Nice word.

Crickett · 05-02-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BamaFalcon59

Nice word.

Actually spelled it wrong. :o

Zbikowski_9 · 05-02-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crickett

Long falling to 5 was ridiculous. Which is why when he didn't go #1, he dropped all the way down to #2. And you're right, it is easy to be a smart a ss and come in here AFTER YOU'VE BEEN PROVEN RIGHT.

I mean, it didn't stop you with you incontrovertable evidence of Scott had it happen in a mock draft.

How is it ridiculous when there was a 50-50 chance that the Rams would go Dorsey over Long, and if that were to happen barring a trade there was a 99% chance he would fall to 5.

That is not ridiculous by any means it was virtualy a 50% chance and if you cant see that you realy are a tool.

And that 'incontrovertable evidence' was a case of me saying i am not the only one with this idea (for which i was written-off as being stupid). The main argument against me was that the Raiders would take him no one even thought the Rams would, and the raiders had DMac higher on their board.

Crickett · 05-02-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zbikowski_9

How is it ridiculous when there was a 50-50 chance that the Rams would go Dorsey over Long, and if that were to happen barring a trade there was a 99% chance he would fall to 5.

That is not ridiculous by any means it was virtualy a 50% chance and if you cant see that you realy are a tool.

50% chance my ***. The Rams are a team with a lot of youth and a fair amount of talent at defensive tackle, a veteran leader in Laroi Glover and a bunch of aging vets at DE who simply didn't get the job done last year.

But by all means, continue name calling. Chris Long was drafted second, and there was a ZERO PERCENT chance, NONE, that he was going to last to #5. If you think there was, you need to take a closer look at teams you know less about than you think.

Zbikowski_9 · 05-02-2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crickett

50% chance my ***. The Rams are a team with a lot of youth and a fair amount of talent at defensive tackle, a veteran leader in Laroi Glover and a bunch of aging vets at DE who simply didn't get the job done last year.

But by all means, continue name calling. Chris Long was drafted second, and there was a ZERO PERCENT chance, NONE, that he was going to last to #5. If you think there was, you need to take a closer look at teams you know less about than you think.

Can you tell me then.
-The falcons spent their top pick on a LE last year and have money invested in the productive right end Abraham. They would take Ryan over him and prob Dorsey and others too.
-The raiders, who in my opinion would have benifited gretly from Dorsey or Chris Long if he was on the board, had McFadden on the top of their board. So despite what they should have done - they would pass

So barring a trade up into the top 4, which proved hard to do (see the NO Saints as an example), i dont see who would have taken him had the Rams chosen Dorsey.

And to say there was ZERO percent chance shows that there is no changing your mind. It was well documented that there was a real split and debate over the no. 2 pick so to say ZERO percent chance is stupid. I think they made the right choice coz Carriker suits playing on the inside but including Glover in your arguement was silly if you are at the same time refering to aging vets on the outside

Crickett · 05-02-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zbikowski_9

Can you tell me then.
-The falcons spent their top pick on a LE last year and have money invested in the productive right end Abraham. They would take Ryan over him and prob Dorsey and others too.
-The raiders, who in my opinion would have benifited gretly from Dorsey or Chris Long if he was on the board, had McFadden on the top of their board. So despite what they should have done - they would pass

No, I think the Falcons would have passed on him.

Not the Raiders though. Yeah, they passed on Vernon Gholston even though he would have filled a need but..... Vernon Gholston isn't the son of a former Oakland Raiders hall of famer. Now, I'm usually someone who doesn't like to take lineage into account when predicting future success, but I can't imagine they would have passed on him for anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zbikowski_9

And to say there was ZERO percent chance shows that there is no changing your mind. It was well documented that there was a real split and debate over the no. 2 pick so to say ZERO percent chance is stupid. I think they made the right choice coz Carriker suits playing on the inside but including Glover in your arguement was silly if you are at the same time refering to aging vets on the outside

Laroi Glover is the one aging vet at DT where the Rams have a bunch of young guys at DT.

At DE, both starters at aging, and they don't really have any depth there.

I mean, last year, only three players on the Rams roster had more than 2 sacks last year.

Corey Chavous, who is a safety.
Laroi Glover, who is a defensive tackle.
Will Witherspoon, who is an outside linebacker