Patriots trade WR Brandon Cooks to Rams

[Dr LBC]

36 minutes ago, Gmen said:

Maybe it’s because the giants have picked up a few former rams in the past couple of years, or maybe it’s because the rams have had so much roster turnover in general, but i’ve noticed rams fans in particular love to drink their teams cool aid.  It’s common among fans, but it seems particularly strong amongst rams fans. Whoever their team dumps is a bum, whoever it brings in is going to be a stud.  A few days ago they were discussing whether the 23rd pick for OBJ is a good deal. Instead they get the ~20th best receiver in the league, and it seems the majority of them are on board.  Nobody seems to even question  why two of the more prolific offenses in the league traded him away. 

You're kind of (conveniently) ignoring the full context of his statement though.  In Wade's scheme and cast as the thumper in a 3-4, Ogletree was more "bum" than "stud," by a considerable amount.  It's not his game and never has been, even when he was playing in a 3-4 at UGA.  Ogletree was the MIKE, not the BUCK (that was Michael Gilliard, and Ramik Wilson on certain downs).  As a WILL in Gregg Williams' scheme he was worthy of the contract he received, as a MIKE in Williams' scheme a number of Rams fans felt he was being overpaid, but understood the reasoning for it.  As the BUCK in Wade's scheme he was absolutely NOT worth the money he was being paid and he was one of the principal reasons why the Rams' rush defense wasn't up to snuff last year.

I don't normally criticize you for this, but you're falling victim to what a lot of people on this site do: Ignoring the full context of a situation (and you did this far more in the quoted post than I've already pointed out) in order to throw shade on a fan base.  It's lazy.  Don't be lazy.

[bzane]

28 minutes ago, N4L said:

Its particularly strong for the entire LA area in general. Its a city that's built on being flashy, being "in" and "hip". The rams are the flavor of the week so you're getting a lot of rams fans who love the big headlines and splashy moves. Id bet that is part of the reason they are making these types of moves, to excite the fan base, which is obviously working - Id be excited if I was a rams fan. 

I lived in LA for 5 years FYI, so Ive seen this first hand and its more about the city than it is the rams fan base in general. 

Do you really think that?

I mean, I've been following the Rams for years and I've never seen any real evidence of-

Oh, wait...................never mind, then!

[Gmen]

6 minutes ago, The LBC said:

You're kind of (conveniently) ignoring the full context of his statement though.  In Wade's scheme and cast as the thumper in a 3-4, Ogletree was more "bum" than "stud," by a considerable amount.  It's not his game and never has been, even when he was playing in a 3-4 at UGA.  Ogletree was the MIKE, not the BUCK (that was Michael Gilliard, and Ramik Wilson on certain downs).  As a WILL in Gregg Williams' scheme he was worthy of the contract he received, as a MIKE in Williams' scheme a number of Rams fans felt he was being overpaid, but understood the reasoning for it.  As the BUCK in Wade's scheme he was absolutely NOT worth the money he was being paid and he was one of the principal reasons why the Rams' rush defense wasn't up to snuff last year.

I don't normally criticize you for this, but you're falling victim to what a lot of people on this site do: Ignoring the full context of a situation (and you did this far more in the quoted post than I've already pointed out) in order to throw shade on a fan base.  It's lazy.  Don't be lazy.

Put yourself in a time machine to two days ago before the trade happened.  Would you have been on board with this trade before it happened?  I believe the majority of Rams would have been opposed to trading the 23rd pick for Cook.  And I say that based on some of the comments I read from you guys about potentially trading for OBJ   If you weren't willing to give up more than the 23rd pick for OBJ (some weren't even willing to do that), I don't understand how you're suddenly okay with giving it up for Cooks.  No offense to Cooks, but he's not in the same league as OBJ.

[StLunatic88]

3 minutes ago, Gmen said:

Put yourself in a time machine to two days ago before the trade happened.  Would you have been on board with this trade before it happened?  I believe the majority of Rams would have been opposed to trading the 23rd pick for Cook.  And I say that based on some of the comments I read from you guys about potentially trading for OBJ   If you weren't willing to give up more than the 23rd pick for OBJ (some weren't even willing to do that), I don't understand how you're suddenly okay with giving it up for Cooks.  No offense to Cooks, but he's not in the same league as OBJ.

I dont think anyone wasnt willing to give up #23 for Odell, the concern was the money attached to him in order to keep him.

Most were willing to give atleast #23+3rd, and this deal we are sending #23 and getting a 4th. 

And whatever Cooks contract is (even if it ends up being Watkins level, which I doubt) its way less than what it would take to keep OBJ

[Kiltman]

4 minutes ago, Gmen said:

Put yourself in a time machine to two days ago before the trade happened.  Would you have been on board with this trade before it happened?  I believe the majority of Rams would have been opposed to trading the 23rd pick for Cook.  And I say that based on some of the comments I read from you guys about potentially trading for OBJ   If you weren't willing to give up more than the 23rd pick for OBJ (some weren't even willing to do that), I don't understand how you're suddenly okay with giving it up for Cooks.  No offense to Cooks, but he's not in the same league as OBJ.

Sound reasoning...cause yea ODJ>>>Cooks

Cooks is a solid good receiver but not a dominant force out there like OBJ can be.

I feel like WR are too easy to scheme out to be overly worth huge trade hauls, but OBJ would be in the top 3 of guys worth it.

[N4L]

44 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

You know, I never thought about this. But it makes a lot of sense.

Especially being new to the city, and trying to grow roots there and capture young fans. Being in the headlines and generating buzz is HUGE for their brand moving forward. 

Its certainly a shrewd move if that is indeed part of their strategy. 

[jrry32]

3 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

We played Suh and Fairley plenty back when they were both with Detroit. Suh was unblockable back then and 2012-2013 Fairley is about the same as 2018 Suh. Definite hindrance to offenses but the Lions still went out and got Ansah because the QBs with pocket awareness can escape outside when the interior collapses.

There's dozens of Samson Ebukam's right now in the league. Young players with upside that their respective teams are counting on big things from, more than half usually flop.

Sorry I see absolutely nothing other than an interior pass rush to fear from the Rams front 7. Mediorce ILBs and EDGE rush downright bad.

Offensively it's a scary unit, but the Pats willingness to let Cooks go was a realization of their mistake from last year. You don't need 1st round WRs to surround a good QB. Looks at GB and Pitt, probably the best stable of WRs this decade, Brown, Nelson, Adams, JJSS, Jennings, Bryant, Jones, Cobb, Sanders, Driver, Ward. No 1st rounders and besides Brown, no huge contracts. The Rams wasted a pick on Watkins last year and now they did exactly the same thing this year. 

Suh + Fairley =/= Suh + Donald. C'mon.

[Dr LBC]

3 minutes ago, Gmen said:

Put yourself in a time machine to two days ago before the trade happened.  Would you have been on board with this trade before it happened?  I believe the majority of Rams would have been opposed to trading the 23rd pick for Cook.  And I say that based on some of the comments I read from you guys about potentially trading for OBJ   If you weren't willing to give up more than the 23rd pick for OBJ (some weren't even willing to do that), I don't understand how you're suddenly okay with giving it up for Cooks.  No offense to Cooks, but he's not in the same league as OBJ.

I disagree.  Some of us weren't willing to give up the 23rd overall pick for OBJ because of the (I believe they're overblown, but there are obviously people that don't believe they are) perceived diva/headcase/character issues and the fact that he has openly campaigned to be seeking QB money.  Cooks isn't getting that.  People can split hairs all they want, but there's a difference between $15-17m (assuming Cooks is even demanding that) and $20+m.  There's also a difference between Cooks and OBJ, as clearly stated.  Were the money not an issue, yes, #23 for OBJ would be a fantastic deal - I don't think anyone was disputing that.  But you'll have to pardon me for thinking (and I'd say it would be a bit hypocritical on your part after what you've just stated on Cooks and OBJ) for Cooks to be expecting to get paid in the same league as OBJ.

The other thing that you're either ignoring or haven't seen is that our FO (and in particular our coach) was actively pursuing Cooks prior to to this.  After what we've seen from our HC, we've learned to trust in his talent eval, particularly when it comes to skill position players and receivers.  We, realistically, have no way of knowing if the "Rams are trying to trade for OBJ" stuff wasn't wholly just smoke from the media or OBJ's camp or both trying to pressure the Giants to do the damn deal (you can check my post history, I've had and voiced this suspicion for a while - you've also got access to my Twitter feed, you can see it on there as well).  I've been of the belief for a while that even with the money due to him, there was no way in hell OBJ was getting traded for just #23 (as, I believe, the majority of Giants fans on here were as well), and with that in mind, Cooks for #23 and a 6th is better value than OBJ for #23, likely a high future pick, and probably another mid-round pick this year especially if you consider the contract demands.

 

[jrry32]

2 hours ago, The LBC said:

 Technically Tavon is still on the books this season, too (I believe jrry misspoke earlier, he re-did his contract and basically put himself on a 1-year, $5m deal to stay with the team)

What I said was accurate. I told the poster that Tavon is not on the books in 2019.

[Dr LBC]

Just now, jrry32 said:

What I said was accurate. I told the poster that Tavon is not on the books in 2019.

I must have missed the 2019 part.

[GSUeagles14]

15 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Suh + Fairley =/= Suh + Donald. C'mon.

eh, not so sure. with the lions both guys were in their primes or close to. Now suh is well out of (although still a really good player). Its certainly close. 

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

eh, not so sure. with the lions both guys were in their primes or close to. Now suh is well out of (although still a really good player). Its certainly close. 

Exactly, there isn't a big gap there. 2012-2014 Suh played at a Donald level and Fairley during that time was pretty close to current Suh.

[Packerraymond]

2 hours ago, Flounch said:

What people tend to forget is that we are still one of the yougest team in the NFL even if we don't have every draft pick every year. So i'm not worry about the future of the team. 

Yes but you're missing out on rookie contracts. Next year is probably the last year Goff will play on his rookie deal, so two more years on that modest QB deal.

Think the Rams see the trouble the Ravens, Seahawks and Packers had with SBs after they paid their QBs, so I don't blame them for going all in, just going to be interested in the next 2 years when they have to make decisions on all these guys.

[Flounch]

11 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Yes but you're missing out on rookie contracts. Next year is probably the last year Goff will play on his rookie deal, so two more years on that modest QB deal.

Think the Rams see the trouble the Ravens, Seahawks and Packers had with SBs after they paid their QBs, so I don't blame them for going all in, just going to be interested in the next 2 years when they have to make decisions on all these guys.

I don't get what you said. Missing out rookie contracts ? What is sure is that Goff, Donald and Gurley will have new contracts and we have cap room to do that. 

Drafting a 1 st round rookie or not, doesn't change anything to that.  

[Broncofan]

7 minutes ago, Flounch said:

I don't get what you said. Missing out rookie contracts ? What is sure is that Goff, Donald and Gurley will have new contracts and we have cap room to do that. 

Drafting a 1 st round rookie or not, doesn't change anything to that.  

He’s saying the roster gets fewer and fewer guys on their rookie deals.   Which is how you build depth.  Sooner or later that catches up.    Now if you have a Saints 2017 draft you can get out of cap trouble but long term this isn’t sustainable.   And obviously the odds of a Saints 2017 draft are once-a-decade league-wide. 

The Rams have a window to contend with little cap trouble for 2018-19.  In 2020 it’s starts to get tighter and by 2021 if they don’t have a bunch of effective players at cheap rookie deal prices then they will have trouble.   That’s life in today’s NFL.   But it also does justify the all-in approach too.  It just leaves less margin to get out of cap problems in 202-21 if they haven’t drafted well with the picks they still have.   It’s a calculated risk.   But let’s also be clear it’s not an immediate one for Donald / Goff / Gurley and even 1-2 of Peters / Cooks / Joyner.