There are 113 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Rams Looking to Trade Down on the Cheap

no way the 9ers jump up for Clausen all this talk is just hype. The 9ers will not trade up at all in the 1st round they will sit at 13 and 17 or they will trade down whichever is better IMO.
Originally posted by matt49er:
no way the 9ers jump up for Clausen all this talk is just hype. The 9ers will not trade up at all in the 1st round they will sit at 13 and 17 or they will trade down whichever is better IMO.

all this anticipation and exitement for the draft will be ruined if we pick clausen, especially if we trade up 4 him.....
How about a 5th rounder? Seems to get you anything this offseason. Anyways, don't think I would want #1 even if it means getting Berry because that would cost a heck of a lot of money.
Originally posted by teeohh:
lol if the Seahawks traded up for Bradford, their move to get Whitehurst will look even more stupid
oh yes...thats why i wonder whether the author was drunk when he wrote that article.
why should the hawks trade up for bradford if they already trade away some valuable picks for an unknown QB?
Originally posted by communist:
Originally posted by teeohh:
lol if the Seahawks traded up for Bradford, their move to get Whitehurst will look even more stupid
oh yes...thats why i wonder whether the author was drunk when he wrote that article.
why should the hawks trade up for bradford if they already trade away some valuable picks for an unknown QB?

It makes perfect sense, here's why:

1. you have an injury-prone starter, so you need a servicable back-up

2. the worst thing you can do to a rookie QB is force him to start before he's ready

3. So, SEA can use Whitehurst as a backup to Hasselbeck until Bradford is ready to take over. Bradford can hold a clipboard for a full year and learn a pro-style offense.

4. Bradford takes over/competes with Whitehurst for the job in 2011.
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by communist:
Originally posted by teeohh:
lol if the Seahawks traded up for Bradford, their move to get Whitehurst will look even more stupid
oh yes...thats why i wonder whether the author was drunk when he wrote that article.
why should the hawks trade up for bradford if they already trade away some valuable picks for an unknown QB?

It makes perfect sense, here's why:

1. you have an injury-prone starter, so you need a servicable back-up

2. the worst thing you can do to a rookie QB is force him to start before he's ready

3. So, SEA can use Whitehurst as a backup to Hasselbeck until Bradford is ready to take over. Bradford can hold a clipboard for a full year and learn a pro-style offense.

4. Bradford takes over/competes with Whitehurst for the job in 2011.

You have a good point there but that's a lot to invest in the QB position. #1 overall, whatever you traded to get to #1 plus a #2 (moved down like 20 spots)

Also, they have a lot more needs to address.
  • flow
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,394
Originally posted by Gore_21:
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by communist:
Originally posted by teeohh:
lol if the Seahawks traded up for Bradford, their move to get Whitehurst will look even more stupid
oh yes...thats why i wonder whether the author was drunk when he wrote that article.
why should the hawks trade up for bradford if they already trade away some valuable picks for an unknown QB?

It makes perfect sense, here's why:

1. you have an injury-prone starter, so you need a servicable back-up

2. the worst thing you can do to a rookie QB is force him to start before he's ready

3. So, SEA can use Whitehurst as a backup to Hasselbeck until Bradford is ready to take over. Bradford can hold a clipboard for a full year and learn a pro-style offense.

4. Bradford takes over/competes with Whitehurst for the job in 2011.

You have a good point there but that's a lot to invest in the QB position. #1 overall, whatever you traded to get to #1 plus a #2 (moved down like 20 spots)

Also, they have a lot more needs to address.

Exactly. Trading for Whitehurst still makes no sense for Seattle because they have so many other glaring needs. So instead of paying all that to get Whitehurst--who has never thrown a regular season snap, mind you--they could have gotten another "spot starter" for much less.
[ Edited by Crazy4Niners on Apr 21, 2010 at 8:17 AM ]
Originally posted by nickbradley:
Originally posted by communist:
Originally posted by teeohh:
lol if the Seahawks traded up for Bradford, their move to get Whitehurst will look even more stupid
oh yes...thats why i wonder whether the author was drunk when he wrote that article.
why should the hawks trade up for bradford if they already trade away some valuable picks for an unknown QB?

It makes perfect sense, here's why:

1. you have an injury-prone starter, so you need a servicable back-up

2. the worst thing you can do to a rookie QB is force him to start before he's ready

3. So, SEA can use Whitehurst as a backup to Hasselbeck until Bradford is ready to take over. Bradford can hold a clipboard for a full year and learn a pro-style offense.

4. Bradford takes over/competes with Whitehurst for the job in 2011.

Nahh i dont buy it. You basically traded for Whitehurst to be the #3 this year? Why not just have traded up for Bradford, let Hasslebeck play this year and then he can be the backup in 2011?