This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
WOW!Between the potential McNabb deal and the Richard Seymour (gave the Patriots their #1 pick next year) the Raiders are the single dumbest team in all of pro sports.McNabb will make them better in the short run, but what are they thinking dealing that much for an older often injured qb?
"They", which is to say Al Davis, is thinking about Al Davis' limited amount of time on this earth to watch his beloved team.
Some speculation that its to motivate the Niners (or Arizona).
Not really. Many teams will be/are scared off because he's in his last year and obviously if you're going to trade for him you want him to sign an extension most likely. So theoretically McNabb can have influence on the market by letting teams know whether he's willing to sign a deal. But if a team (like Oakland allegedly) is willing to trade for him as a one-year rental and bank on getting him to sign an extension sometime later this season, he has no choice where he lands.
After Bradford's pro day, I think trading for McNabb is now out of the question. In the court of public opinion, it is a fireable offense.
McNabb is 33. Rich Gannon was 34 when he signed with the Raiders, was 37 when he played in the Raiders last Superbowl appearance, and was 39 when he retired. While I liked Gannon a great deal, I'd also argue that McNabb is even more talented than Gannon was. If they should get him, McNabb gives the Raiders the best shot of turning around thier team by far - if they can lock him up to an extension (which should be quite possible given McNabb's situation) he could give them a good shot at the playoffs + for the next 3-5 years, depending on what else the club puts around him. I think McNabb for a 2nd rounder would be a steal for Oakland if that's truly what the deal is, and would be shocked if that's all we get for him.
"That much"?
You're delusional.
I dont see the motivation here. Oakland, Buffalo or SL is a great spot to see him land for these teams and Philly has to go to a less experienced QB. Seems like a win-win and no need to get involved. And he still is a FA next year if need be.
Sounds like we agree.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what about the situation would make it quite possible to get him to sign an extension?I would think one season playing for Al Davis and throwing to Heyward-Bey would be about all he could handle.
Gannon joined a team that was 8-8, with a top-5 defense the previous season. The current Raiders are coming off their seventh straight 11+ loss season, and have a defense ranked in the bottom 10 for the third year in a row. (Same as the offense). That team needs a lot more than a short-term QB.
Been covered ad nauseum, but to review:1.
2. Potential lockout in 2011 - he'd be what, 36 by the time he was a UFA if there's a lockout?3. His constant injuries - a big one could absolutely kill his value for the following off-season.If you're McNabb, you want your next deal, and all that guaranteed money, right now.
Smokescreen. My take on that is Philly trying to bolster their bargaining power.
One or even Zero is "a number", technically speaking. Many reports I see from team sources tied to trade partners in the McNabb deal are denying any negotiations. And the Eagles continue to backtrack on their "requirements"... From roto:
I don't think this is impossible.Especially the Rams maybe playing possum with Bradford. Normally, I'd say that a trade at #1 is un-possible, but if Snyder and Shanahan think Bradford is the guy, I could see a move down to #4.
Another thing is that it has been said that Bradford may not sign a deal before the draft....
That's a real interesting story. If the Rams decide he's not worth the headache, and can't make a deal, I wouldn't fault them for taking Suh.
Just curious but which of those young Raiders Wr are great because I would love to get him on my fantasy team.
Sorry for the mini-hijack but...I knew it was bad. Really bad. This is just brutal, though.
Aren't you at least a bit worried about the shoulder? I would be.
Won't he play in shorts and T-shirt on Sundays?Seriously though, the Rams would be better off with Bradford. McNabb will really be on the downside of his career by the time the Rams are competitive. He has had his share of nagging injuries himself. The Rams need time to get their O-Line in shape; putting McNabb at the mercy of a relentless pass rush doesn't make much sense either. If Jackson loses much time this coming season to his back injury what will the Rams have to protect McNabb. At least the fear of a top tier runner keeps the defense in check for a couple of seconds. It makes sense to go with Bradford if they feel he can be a productive QB in the League.Too many IFS for a trade with McNabb to make sense. Paying big money to him and a 1.01 pick would not be very appealing to a new franchise owner.Jason Wood said:
If the Rams are just beginning to be competitive 3-4 years from now, then the people who are making the decision on whether or not to draft Bradford probably won't still be around anyway.This is why I don't get why people think teams have these massive 4 year rebuilding plans. Job security is low in the NFL, and turnover is very high. If a team spends more than a year or two rebuilding then the people who have spent the time rebuilding are gone by then anyway, so why would they plan for that? So that their successor can have success thanks to their growing pains?Teams go from bad to good overnight in the NFL all the time now. It's silly to say "we don't want a guy who we'll only have for 3 years because we're going to suck for all 3 years anyhow". This is the NFL. The Rams could come out and be a playoff team next year even without Mcnabb. Stranger things happen on a regular occurrence.
Teams that go from bad to good have pieces in place to attain that. There are plenty of teams that haven't turned anything around in a short period of time; Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, San Francisco and even Houston haven't seen the playoffs in quite some time. Houston and San Francisco have a lot more in place to make the jump than St Louis. Where are the playmakers on both sides of the ball for St Louis?
Bradford would be playing behind that same line. And he'd be playing soon.
is it possible you would be more inclined to take a chance, if in a horrifying, alternate, splinter reality, the eagles had mcnabb's career parallel warner's, and he was cut, your supposed bulger-like replacement got increasingly worse until he completely imploded, you didn't have a single, viable starting QB on the roster, and were coming off a nightmarish stretch of averaging 2-14 in past three years, and your team had passed on consecutive franchise-looking QBs in ryan and sanchez?the eagles have done a great job in drafting kolb in 2nd and developing him, and picking up the functional, post-prison vick.i have to trust multiple medical staffs in vetting them... including independent andrews (he did work on him, so perhaps he is tainted by that fact, but i think his professional reputation is dependent on his perceived neutral and unbiased take... he is also i think at least a consultant for WAS, so if they have interest, i take that as a good sign), and their own medical staff.as i see it, they have to make two important determinations... did bradford have a structurally weak & unsound shoulder to start with, that made him more likely to have an injury like this. this seems unlikely, and i don't hear many (any?) people suggesting this. i think there are a lot of ways a QB can be hit, and almost all of them don't lead to these type of injuries... pennington and smith are recent high profile QB that had shoulder trouble, as well as brees of course... pennington is i am guessing the biggest cautionary tale, with three shoulder surgeries... he has missed a lot of time... he did come back after two, and still won comeback player of the year in '06... he does have a weak arm, but never had a cannon to start with... like brees (smith, too?), it was a rotator cuff tear (&/or torn labrum?), a more serious injury than bradford's AC joint, as i understand it.imo, a lot of QBs, if they were unlucky enough to be driven into the point of their shoulder, possibly with the weight of a defender compounding the force/trauma, would suffer a similar injury. i'm not discouraged by the second injury, as i don't think it was sufficiently (let alone fully) healed.i also have to trust the medical evals to make the call whether bradford is or is not a drastically increased risk to suffer more, similar injuries... it is admittedly a huge decision (if not risk) involving tens of millions of dollars... if i was the GM or HC, and entrusted with the owner's money, i would instruct the medical team to be neither overly conservative or reckless (actually, i would just instruct them to give the unvarnished facts, and i would make that call)... for me, the cutoff would be if he was about 10% increased risk, that would be acceptable... if it went up to 20-25%, that would be unacceptably, far too high... i think andrews has already said he was at no additional risk. for the record, our own dr. jene bramel, qualified a medical opinion i solicited about this very subject, by saying ortho was not his specialty (general ped?), but based on his preliminary research of the sports injury literature, there WAS in his opinion an increased risk, but don't recall if it was characterized quantitatively, by %, as dramatically higher? addressing other questions below...i do think OL has contributed in a big way to bulger's demise... i have hopes they can surround bradford with better talent on the OL in the future (and would be foolish not to protect their investment - i have an expectation they will... the rams franchise have made some terrible specific draft blunders and overall roster architecting decisions in past decade post-vermiel, but i chalk that up to the tragic zygmunt/shaw, martz/linehan legacy, and it would be nearly impossible for devaney/spags, or potential replacements down the line, to fare as poorly)... as noted above, i think they have some pieces in place... if he doesn't suffer from concussion problems, LT of the future/present jason smith has the physical tools and mental traits/makeup to be successfull (no idea if eventual pro bowl caliber), and was showing signs of developing last year before being shut down... bell is a functional LG, and center brown was one of the prizes of the '09 free agent class... they don't need to spend future high 1st round picks on a RG & RT... they have admittedly disappointing 1st round LT barron for now, and while he is nothing special as a run blocker, and makes drive killing penalties, he is pretty athletic for a big man, and pass protection might be his strong suit... i don't think he has given up many sacks in past few seasons (?). when i look for patterns/trends in three most recent unequivocal #1 overall QB busts... russell, carr & couch, bradford seems to have nothing in common with russell as far as work ethic, maturity, professionalism, leadership ability and other intangibles... his arm isn't as strong, but it is plenty strong, and he is ridiculously more accurate... in his mental/emotional makeup, bradford seems to have far more in common with three top 5 QBs taken in past two years, who all look very promising, and i think their teams and fans have to be thrilled with how they have developed in their short time so far. as to carr, it is hard to say if HOU just completely whiffed on that pick (like bradford, carr also had great collegiate stats, for a program not known as an NFL QB factory), or his development was stunted/crushed by playing behind a poor OL (i have already cited why i have some optimism for the STL OL in future)... HOU clearly erred in not prioritizing OL more, to protect their investment and their franchise's future hope at the QB position (again, how hard is it to find interior OL, without needing to spend a #1 pick on them?)... i hope the rams have duly noted this cautionary tale. again, i have more confidence in the new front office (i think devaney claimed that when he got there, the team didn't even have a pro personnel dept.?)... carr never had a RB as good as steven jackson, and i would hope that bradford hands off a lot as a rookie, especially early...Jason Wood said:
i agree he will be inserted quickly, if not immediately... i would think almost certainly at some point in his rookie year... it wouldn't surprise me if he does start immediately.couch, i don't have his collge or early years committed to memory with photographic recall, but i don't remember him being as accurate, or as highly touted a prospect (some scouts are saying that bradford is one of the best prospects of the past half decade, if not longer?)...don't want to turn this into a bradford thread/hi-jack... but bradford does clearly seem to intersect with the mcnabb to rams ramblings, one of several prominent rumors swirling around the eagles... i have been saying for a while that i don't think kolb would be the QB moved, and so far, that seems to have been on the mark.the eagles seem to want to get younger, and they are far closer to a super bowl... it just seems it would be even more so for a team seemingly so far from being in playoff contention like the rams.sure, some teams like ATL take a big jump in one year and get launched into playoff contention with a QB upgrade (and anyway, ryan was also a rookie, vindicating the wisdom of building around a young franchise QB)... they also had a huge RB upgrade in turner (similar to rams jackson in talent), and white further developed (STL doesn't appear to have a WR anywhere near as talented as white on their roster, and don't look like a candidate to have a parallel boost in the standings by that measure?)... but that kind of dramatic rise in competitiveness is far from the norm...hypothetically, if the rams are more than a year away (a reason frequently conceded by pro-suh advocates, and in fact recommended precisely for that reason, in part, as well as suh being higher graded... ie - since he is higher graded, and they aren't going anywhere, get suh now & QB later)... AND bradford ends up being as good advertised (admittedly that is a big if, but if shoulder risk deemed acceptable, he seems to have more in common with recent successes than failures?)... they would have around a 25 year old bradford at the position, with extremely bright long term prospects at the most important position... or they could have a 35 year old mcnabb, presumably far closer to the end of his career than bradford... and than they would just have to reload... AGAIN... possibly with another high pick.does not compute(of course if bradford's career is ended on his first play, and macnabb plays well into his late 30s - it did compute! 
)
Didn't St. Louis already go from suck to champs overnight?They added Marshall Faulk and drafted Torry Holt.
i agree with muchkin on DEFENSE (laurinaitis is fine, if not a ray lewis type of playmaker)... i am hopeful long will be good to very good, not as sure he will ever be great... close to best case scenario might be justin smith, who was perceived in CIN as being a disappointment for a #4 overall pick, but has thrived in SF and is arguably borderline pro bowl caliber... but i think smith is bigger/stronger... not sure he is as explosive as kerney, but it does usually take young DL a few years to breakout... if he was as good as kerney, rams fans would be ecstatic... atogwe is a playmaker in terms of INTs/FFs, but may not be back, and at times is a liability in run support AND coverage.on offense, they have a key piece to the puzzle in jackson already (though in a few years he will be approaching 30, maybe when they are more competitive, when things break right... one of their biggest needs is an upgraded backup to spell jackson and take some of the load off, start if he is injured and possibly to begin grooming a future starter)... i haven't written avery off, but he has gotten hurt a lot... he looked better as rookie and seemed to regress as a soph, but the whole team disintegrated, and OL was beat up, and QB play appallingly bad... only 16 TDs on offense all season (total)... he reportedly intends to report bigger by 10 or more lbs, in an effort to be more resilient... robinson and burton are huge question marks, again for medical reasons, they seem to have trouble staying healthy, burton may have damaged knees... they are really all very similar, and they probably need a hulking WR that can run intermediate routes over the middle... they definitely need to draft a TE, & i expect them to... maybe after the 2nd round in this draft... it will be prioritized soon, but the rams have so many gaping holes, hard to tell if it will be this year (in 2nd for instance, they could get DE, LB, CB, RB, WR, TE, maybe others?)... i would say if not in 2010, next year.the rams that traded for faulk and drafted holt, already had bruce (arguably HoF caliber production), orlando pace (one of two 1st overall OTs since merger, with pro bowl caliber jake long, and one of three best LTs of his era, with walter jones and jonathan ogden), caught lightning in a bottle with warner after a devastating knee injury to expected starter trent green (who looked phenomenal in pre-season), and also had quality interior OL like timmerman. on defense, they had a DL with HIGH 1st rounders (both 1.06) kevin carter, who had 17 sacks that year (future pro bowler little was on team, but broke out in future seasons) and grant wistrom, london fletcher, who went on to become one of the best MLBs of his era in BUF and WAS, leaving a gaping hole only just filled last year by laurinaitis (the 2010 cupboard is far, far barer than the '99 iteration which was on the cusp of the franchise's only super bowl win in three tries).
kinda. But I do value and enjoy Bob's insight. Plus, his writing style is rather enjoyable. We Ram fans are a rare lot these days. The point is that Magaw is darn sold that McNabb will not be coming to the Lou.
lol, DH any nuggets for the birds fans?
i wouldn't do this in the eagles thread... it is a mcnabb trade rumor thread, and the rams are rumored to be a potential partner... comments/questions were made about why the state of the rams might make such a move more or less likely.i answered them.hi-jack over (sorry
)...* just for the record, i have no insider info... i have heard some informal rams sources suggest that at this point it is just a completely unsubstantiated rumor... i was merely offering my opinion of why i find it (highly) unlikely. but i could be way off.please carry on.rams aside, it is interesting that this has blown up in a few weeks from being very speculative to... lets just say, seemingly further along the scale now than the until fairly recently highly speculative.
You should go over to the Dynasty Thread and see some of the posts SSOG puts out there. Nothing wrong with informed opinions. We may not agree with them but I certainly appreciate someone spending the time to put out thoughtful opinions.I am not saying you don't but I just wanted to add my two cents on it.
Bob,If you are going to continue with insightful and well thought out posts like this, please feel free to invade the Eagles thread. We are very passionate fans, but sometimes we could use a voice of reason.i wouldn't do this in the eagles thread... it is a mcnabb trade rumor thread, and the rams are rumored to be a potential partner... comments/questions were made about why the state of the rams might make such a move more or less likely.i answered them.hi-jack over (sorry
As Mike Missanelli (97.5) put it, it will be hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point.
As much as it needs to happen, anyone else feel like a #5 trade isn't going to get done?
One can only hope
Jason, serious question....After the two blowouts to Dallas and the offseason we have had thus far, are we going to win the Super Bowl with McNabb next year?One can only hope
I'm not sure what one has to do with the other.But to get to a finer point, I suspect we'll have a better season with McNabb than we would without him.Jason, serious question....After the two blowouts to Dallas and the offseason we have had thus far, are we going to win the Super Bowl with McNabb next year?One can only hope
