The cap would really make trading for Bradford and his giant contact silly as well. If STL ends up with the first, we are better off taking the second best QB in the draft, be in Barkley, Jones or someone else.
Exactly. Though I think people are going a bridge too far when they assume that of course St. Louis would draft Luck at #1 overall. Why? So they can ruin their salary cap and divide their locker room with two #1 overall QBs? Drafting Luck only makes sense for them if they fire Spagnuolo and Devaney, but even then, Bradford's contract isn't tradable, so a new regime would be stuck with him ala Alex Smith. Another bridge too far: the assumption that the Rams would like to replace Bradford with Luck. Yeah, Luck is a better prospect than Bradford was, but it's very tough to see an NFL franchise giving up on a #1 overall QB that quickly, new regime or not.
Well, Bradford's hurt so there's no telling how long his ankle injury lingers if he comes back too soon or whatever. Personally I'd take Bradford over Jones even if it cost us and extra couple 2nd rounders in the process. I'd think they'd gladly take our top 8 pick to finally ensure a top flight receiver that the team & fans were accustomed to with Holt & Bruce. Luck and Blackmon (or Jeffery) plus a few extra 2nd rounders could be more enticing than Luck, 2 1st rounders, and no Blackmon or Jeffery. After all, one of the reasons Bradford has struggled is lack of pass catching talent or no #1 go to WR..... and Brandon Lloyd is a FA after this year. Let's not forget that Bradford will be nearly 2 years seasoned over Jones, which carries some value to it. The growing pains will be shorter lived with Bradford, and with the ghost of Marino always lurking nearby, that's a significant benefit IMO.
Yes, they could, and I think that's the most likely COA if they get the #1 overall pick. But like I posted earlier, I wouldn't negotiate with terrorists.
I believe the Rams would still owe Bradford $33 million in guaranteed (since they paid him $17 million this year IIRC). If you split that up over 2 years and take into account Luck's much lower salary while also not having to shell out much money for his rookie season, it would be possible for St Louis to trade Bradford IMO. Not to mention, there's probably a team or 2 who would eat some of Sam's guaranteed money to make the deal happen. The 49ers were stuck with Alex Smith b/c he wasn't worth a bag of peanuts at the time so there was no way another team would pay him like a #1 pick and eat a chunk of his unworthy contract. And if the Rams finish with the #1 pick, there won't be worries about "dividing" their locker room; it will have already been divided or deflated.
The OL may have been given a lot of attention, but that does not mean they are all playing up to their potential. He probably has the worst set of WRs in the league. It's taken Stafford a couple of years to pan out and to be getting down on Bradford already would be extremely shortsighted.
I think you're off on trading up for Luck. I really do think Ross would pull the trigger on that. This franchise has shown a really strong history of making the best out of late picks UDFAs and what not. Consider this: 1- An excellent QB prospect (the one we've always wanted)+35-40m in guaranteed cash to sign say Ben Grubbs and maybe another guy. vs. 1- Landry Jones (more questions, still a great prospect) plus two first round picks that could be anywhere. If you look at things in that way I really do think teams when forced to make something out of nothing do really well in their drafting. Miami for example had less picks this year and did very well. When they had the luxury of numerous picks in 09, they busted on Pat White. My wild guess is that Ross would throw three firsts right at St. Louis to complete the Luck deal even if Miami were the #2 or #3 overall. Seattle would be automatically out of the race, Cleveland would have a chance but I'm not sure St. Louis passes up on Miami's offer.
That is a steep price. There's a lot of speculation about what a franchise QB with a rookie scale is worth. Obviously most of us would agree that it's going to be more expensive since these #1's are going to be cheaper and less of a risk to a franchise. However three first round picks? Eli Manning, who in 2004 was hailed as being the best prospect since Manning and Elway (although, unlike Luck, no one argued Eli could be better than those two) didn't garner anymore than two #1's and 2nd (Which was Rivers and Merriman/Kaeding a year later). Although it does scare me when morons like Oakland give up potential 2 #1's for Carson Palmer, I have to imagine two 1's, two 2's will be the max price for Luck. And Des is right, Cleveland could definitively have the ammo if they don't win too many games. Blackmon needs to be a Ram.
3 First Rounders for Luck is pretty fair. Think about it, you're only really giving up 2 first rounders, cause you're drafting Luck and you would have used him for your 2012 pick anyway. However, if we were stuck at the #2 overall pick, I'd trade my 2012 first rounder, my 2013 first rounder + ANYONE ON THE ROSTER NOT NAMED JAKE LONG.
I like Bradford, but I think his contract makes a trade unlikely. If St. Louis holds the first overall, they should trade back for a gaggle of picks and/or players (unless he's hurt in some permanent way). As for the hypothetical, I would be fine with trading for Bradford. IMO he was a better prospect than Jones is and I would have no problem with drafting Jones. I actually would have no problem with drafting Weedon, Barkley or Jones should we miss out on Luck.
To be perfectly honest, if we wind up at #2 and STL gets #1, I think we trade up for Luck almost no matter the costs. This franchise is at the point where we NEED Andrew Luck. We don;t just need a good QB prospect, we need this guy. In terms of relevance and just getting back to where we want to be, we need Luck.
Just buzzing around the 'net, etc. I know Scouts, Inc. has had him rated at about the same level they had Bradford, and Kiper's very high on Jones also. I also recall Boomer posting a tidbit that someone (Razzano? Lande?) thinks Jones may turn out to be a better prospect than Luck, FWIW. I will say, though, that there also seems to be a fair amount of people that have Jones ranked behind Barkley right now.
Oh, he would, absolutely. And Luck would be worth it. But, me, personally? I go to the nearest ESPN camera and say "We will not negotiate with terrorists." And I would gladly pay that fine.
