[/zn/]

The argument, to me, for trading Peters includes a couple of things... I don't want to go into 2020 needing 2 new starting corners.
The money saved on Peters can go somewhere else. Earl Thomas? Another Edge? Oline?

Okay. To me though they are better off putting young corners behind Peters and Talib. That's if they want to be at least approximately the same team in 2019, meaning a team with the same chances. I am thinking they probably need a rookie at FS (unless they like their current depth there more than I realize).

So I personally don't like having 2 youngsters in the secondary. 1 at FS would be enough.

Though when it comes to FS, given how good they are with both 3rd rounders AND finding DBs, I think it's possible they end up with 2 great safeties ( I assume, given their record, they can find someone to go with Johnson).

So today, anyway, my thinking is, they probably need the first 3 picks for edge, CB and FS. Next 4 picks for developmental OL (2 OL), DL, and qb.

Given all that I like the idea, in this context, of maintaining current strengths at WR (part of this is that I don't have as much faith in Reynolds to be a starter as others do, but then I think he's okay as a 4th).

The obvious hesitation is that if they have to deal with issues regarding AW and/or Gurley, that changes the whole equation.

...

[/zn/]

I agree with you on depending on too many youngsters in the secondary to start the season.
They could go after a veteran like Glover Quin and draft a safety in the 4th.. the 3rd if they trade down and get an additional 3rd.

'
Yeah see for me, no FAs. Or only budget FAs, like Roby-Coleman, and castoffs like Blythe. I am always thinking about the limited number of big contracts they can have...or soon anyway that will be a big restriction. Any FA they sign means big numbers for at least 4 years.

[PARAM]

I think there are other areas to save money. Barron for starters. Cutting him saves us 6.33 mil while cutting or trading Woods saves us just 3.6 mil (with 3.5 in dead money). Cutting Sullivan saves us 5.25 mil. If Whitworth decides to retire that's another 11.5. Add that to the 26.263 mil in cap space and it gives us almost 50 million. Plus the difference with a cap increase. So we could have at least 40 mil if Whitworth stays on with Barron and Sully gone. 50+ if all three go. Brockers is a 10.5 mil cap savings with just 750,000 in dead money. Peters and Talib are 9 mil each with no dead money. But I'd rather keep them just like I'd keep Woods. That's about it for saving big money. Everybody else cuttable is less than 4 mil with close to their cap savings in dead money. I think it's Barron, Sullivan and maybe Brockers. Plenty there to sign Saffold.

[ramsman34]

Uhhh, you don't trade top performing players who are signed under manageable contracts. You don't get value. You get "potential" in draft picks that yes, cost less. But, have done NOTHING at the NFL level. Further, it sends a shit message to your locker room.

I think the idea is just dumb. It's not like the talent wasn't there to win the SB. Sean got out schemed and out coached, the team got outplayed. Play that same game 10 times; how do you think those games turn out? 6-4, 5-5?? that would be my guess. 2-3 plays we win that game. Why on earth would we trade one of our best and most diverse offensive players (routes, YAC, blocking, durability, leadership) for fuckin' draft picks.

We aren't rebuilding for Pete's sake. There is plenty of money to be saved by cutting under performing/over priced players - and Mr. Woods is neither of those.

[ramsman34]

The most important thing in my post is everything. You can't cherry pick the value of a player. Value is a mosaic, a composite.

You can't compare Tree to Woods. Woods is ascending, Tree was obsolete. Get better by retaining championship quality players, and releasing overpaid/under performing players. Again, Woods is neither while Tree was both - and his resigning was strategic.

I love your argument. You just picked the wrong player. Barron? Sure. Brockers? A much better example.

[PARAM]

The Woods thing was *in addition* to many of the cuts you mentioned.
I'm thinking Brockers, Barron and Sullivan could all be cut... in fact, I think it's likely.

Okay. But why do we "need" that much money? This is a team that went to the Superbowl. We're going to lose/cut some guys.....maybe a 15 to 20% turnover.....but it's not like we went 9-7, missed the playoffs and need to make a few major adjustments to be a factor in 2019. We are already a factor for 2019.

[PARAM]

Uhhh, you don't trade top performing players who are signed under manageable contracts. You don't get value. You get "potential" in draft picks that yes, cost less. But, have done NOTHING at the NFL level. Further, it sends a shit message to your locker room.

I think the idea is just dumb. It's not like the talent wasn't there to win the SB. Sean got out schemed and out coached, the team got outplayed. Play that same game 10 times; how do you think those games turn out? 6-4, 5-5?? that would be my guess. 2-3 plays we win that game. Why on earth would we trade one of our best and most diverse offensive players (routes, YAC, blocking, durability, leadership) for fuckin' draft picks.

We aren't rebuilding for Pete's sake. There is plenty of money to be saved by cutting under performing/over priced players - and Mr. Woods is neither of those.

The most important thing in my post is everything. You can't cherry pick the value of a player. Value is a mosaic, a composite.

You can't compare Tree to Woods. Woods is ascending, Tree was obsolete. Get better by retaining championship quality players, and releasing overpaid/under performing players. Again, Woods is neither while Tree was both - and his resigning was strategic.

I love your argument. You just picked the wrong player. Barron? Sure. Brockers? A much better example.

Yes, I don't understand this "cut/trade quality players to gain minimal cap space AND get a lottery ticket (draft pick)". Again this was not a 9-7 team. This was a team who went 11-5 and 13-3, got to the Superbowl and missed. For years we were in search of a WR corp and now that we have a dynamite one, we should break it up?

I agree. Barron, Sullivan and probably Brockers. Beyond that were losing CJ, Suh and Joyner. Maybe Saffold. I liked the suggestion by one talking head to go out and get Anthony Barr in free agency. Perhaps a low cost vet backup for the O line with Allen and/or Noteboom becoming a starter(s).

[snackdaddy]

My one, strong feeling is standing pat is dangerous.

Maybe so. But when you're already a top contender making changes is dangerous too.

[dieterbrock]

If he's going to a team that already uses "off coverage"? He showed he is *excellent* in that, down the stretch.
But.. I figure the best you get for him is a 4th. I would do it, though. My thinking is to then draft a CB who plays press coverage in the 1st round. I don't want to go into 2020 needing 2 new starting CBs.

I was asking about Woods, what would you consider fair value for him?

[Rams1PlateSince1976]

We upgraded with Littleton over Tree. Doubt if a draft pick would upgrade Woods unless Woods gets run over by a truck the day after your trade.