Bears Rams Trade Rumor

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Another poster I respect on Rams Talk is 428, who has had some good inside information on the draft before. He mentioned recently that a guy people in the NFL are high on, someone who may go in the top 5 that no one is talking about, is Arik Armstead, the big DL from Oregon (6'7", 295 lbs). Apparently a lot of teams like him that high, possibly including the Rams, so he might be in their Elite 7 list.
 
I agree that Brockers and a #10 is too much to move up 3 spots, but if the Bears included their second (#40), it would start to make sense. Even their #3, I might listen to.

I do find it believable that they're shopping Brockers -- if he's asking to negotiate a long-term contract now. He still has 2 years left on this contract! This year at 3M, next year at 6.1M. There is no reason for the Rams to renegotiate now.

Brockers had a good rookie season but he's been pretty quiet since. He's a capable starter, but it's a position that could be upgraded, even with a cheaper guy. Decent run-stuffers with minimal pass rush can even be found in the second round or later for under 1M.

A #14 pick could've been in a Pro Bowl already - Bockers has been good but he hasn't really lived up to the draft slot and his contract. Aaron Donald and Robert Quinn were #13 and #14 picks. And we passed up Pro Bowler Dontari Poe at #6 to trade down for Brockers and Pead.

If Brockers is asking is asking to renegotiate a deal that already averages 4M annually for the next 2 years -- you know he's asking for more than that, probably a lot more. If they're looking to move him, it's probably way too much for his production, so they're trying to move him now to avoid a big problem with him just ahead. I just wish they wouldn't have traded Langford if they're going to move Brockers. It does create another hole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ramsey
Chill guys, this is bullshit season for NFL GMs and media people.

theramsruleUK said:
I guess you can look at it like this

Would you trade Kevin Whites potential for Michael Brockers Run Stuffing? Bearing in mind we have a ridiculous DL anyway
Click to expand...

That's not really the trade, though. You're trading the player we can get at #10 AND Michael Brockers for Kevin White (or whoever else at #7). Not worth it imo.

But I'm not going to get up all up in arms over a rumor a couple days from the draft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paceram and Corbin
62ramsfan said:
I agree that Brockers and a #10 is too much to move up 3 spots, but if the Bears included their second (#40), it would start to make sense. Even their #3, I might listen to.

I do find it believable that they're shopping Brockers -- if he's asking to negotiate a long-term contract now. He still has 2 years left on this contract! This year at 3M, next year at 6.1M. There is no reason for the Rams to renegotiate now.

Brockers had a good rookie season but he's been pretty quiet since. He's a capable starter, but it's a position that could be upgraded, even with a cheaper guy. Decent run-stuffers with minimal pass rush can even be found in the second round or later for under 1M.

A #14 pick could've been in a Pro Bowl already - Bockers has been good but he hasn't really lived up to the draft slot and his contract. Aaron Donald and Robert Quinn were #13 and #14 picks. And we passed up Pro Bowler Dontari Poe at #6 to trade down for Brockers and Pead.

If Brockers is asking is asking to renegotiate a deal that already averages 4M annually for the next 2 years -- you know he's asking for more than that, probably a lot more. If they're looking to move him, it's probably way too much for his production, so they're trying to move him now to avoid a big problem with him just ahead. I just wish they wouldn't have traded Langford if they're going to move Brockers. It does create another hole.
Click to expand...

Not true. Have had this discussion a few times in the past but if you look at what the probabilities of what first round picks become, Brockers has met and arguably outplayed his draft slot. Your percentage chance of drafting a player that makes a Pro Bowl in the mid first round is somewhere between 26.5% and 38.0%. So the expectation that Brockers has to make the Pro Bowl to live up to his draft slot is an unrealistic one. That would mean that around 62% to 73.5% of players wouldn't live up to expectations. That would indicate to me that the expectation isn't a realistic one.

Furthermore, that data is based on players making ONE Pro Bowl appearance over their career so if you consider that Brockers has only been in the league three years and still has an opportunity to make one Pro Bowl over his career, that further would alter the data. I do not have data for players making at least one Pro Bowl in their first three years.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: Leagueofshadows, rdw and Ramsey
Good points, but not for my money. I don't follow PFF, but where do they rank Brockers? Forget the Pro Bowl, the top 5-10% at his position group, is he even in the top 30%-40%? I mean by some objective measurement, not just subjective views of how much Rams fans like him. He definitely hasn't been good enough to be considered untouchable or franchiseable. So if they don't think they want to keep him long term, why not get something for him now?
 
Good points, but not for my money. I don't follow PFF, but where do they rank Brockers? Forget the Pro Bowl, the top 5-10% at his position group, is he even in the top 30%-40%? I mean by some objective measurement, not just subjective views of how much Rams fans like him. He definitely hasn't been good enough to be considered untouchable or franchiseable. So if they don't think they want to keep him long term, why not get something for him now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: theramsruleUK
.

I guess I'm different than alot of fans here. I'm still trying to come to terms that they traded away sam. Even though I understand why they did it I still don't agree with it.

The way many here are happy to toss aside brockers is puzzling to me. I just can't support shirts, I support the players in the shirts. A class act like brockers who has served the rams well is a player I would not be happy at all if he was dealt away.

Yes I know Quinn and Donald are the 2 keepers in the line. Doesn't mean I will be happy if they let brockers go.

.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions: Memento, BigRamFan, rdw and 3 others
For me it depends on 2 things:

What exactly is the trade offer? If it's Brockers + our 1st to move up 3 spots then forget it, would rather keep him for the next 2 years then get most likely a 4th round comp pick when he walks as a FA.

And just how badly does he want that long term deal? If he's threatening to hold out until he gets it then that trade offer looks a lot more attractive all of a sudden.
 
62ramsfan said:
Good points, but not for my money. I don't follow PFF, but where do they rank Brockers? Forget the Pro Bowl, the top 5-10% at his position group, is he even in the top 30%-40%? I mean by some objective measurement, not just subjective views of how much Rams fans like him. He definitely hasn't been good enough to be considered untouchable or franchiseable. So if they don't think they want to keep him long term, why not get something for him now?
Click to expand...

No clue. I don't really pay any attention to PFF's grading system. Too flawed.

It's not your money, though. Gotta remember that. It's the Rams and the NFL. In terms of bang for your buck and realistic expectations of draft position, Brockers isn't failing to live up to his contract or draft position. It's very arguable that he hasn't outplayed either but he has lived up to both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: paceram
Memento said:
Wrong on both counts. Give him the long term deal he wants. He's twenty-four, for freak's sake, and he's the best run-stopper on the entire defense, and he takes up two blockers for the rest of the D-line to get the stats.

Don't freaking trade this guy, Snisher. Give him what he wants.
Click to expand...
I thought Snisher were in the process of trying to build a dynasty D-line, a run-stuffing, pass rush monster, after all it's what we need in our division - why not trade our young core away... I hope this rumour is just wrong and is just ass-smoke...
 
Related....http://sportsmockery.com/2015/04/hot-rumor-bears-and-rams-talking-nfl-draft-trade/



The general feeling every year is that the real talk when it comes to an NFL draft trade doesn’t start to appear until the draft itself is right around the corner. Now the Chicago Bears have been connected to all sorts of rumors over the past couple months.
Trade up for Marcus Mariota
Trade down for Danny Shelton
Trade Jay Cutler
Trade Matt Forte
Sure, there was some logic behind all of them, but none with any meat. For the first time though a rumor was put forth that had more than just logic but actual sense behind it.
Hot rumor or pre-draft smoke?: #Bears and #Rams talking swap of draft picks plus Michael Brockers…?
— Benjamin Allbright (@AllbrightNFL) April 28, 2015
The basis of this idea is very simple. Chicago gives its 7th overall pick to the St. Louis Rams who get to move up three spots while they deliver the 10th overall pick and defensive tackle Michael Brockers in exchange.
Here is why the move makes sense for both teams:
  • The Rams don’t need Brockers anymore after signing Nick Fairley in free agency
  • Moving up to #7 gives them a chance to land a top receiver or offensive lineman
  • Brockers is only 24-years old, a hulking 322 lbs and a good run defender. Perhaps an ideal fit as a 3-4 nose tackle, where the Bears need help
  • Dropping to #10 still keeps Chicago in good position to land another key need such as a receiver, cornerback, pass rusher or safety
Essentially the Bears gain an extra player out of the deal since they only have six picks, one who is still young and entering his prime. Meanwhile the Rams clear up a crowded depth chart and put themselves in excellent position to land a top player at a position of need.
Everybody wins.
So what do you think, Bears fans? Should Ryan Pace pull the trigger if this NFL draft trade is legit?
 
The worrying thing for me is the fact that it's all going a bit 'Madden' with all of this cutting and swapping of players - a player is more than just a position on the field its a part of a unit on a team. Our d-line, in my mind is our most solid unit, don't tinker with it, brining in guys for freshness and rotational strength, great, but if you keep changing players you're never going to get that cohesion that you need to be better than your opposition
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaphod
Elmgrovegnome said:
What? I am not using hindsight for either. I hated both of those moves when they happened. I was screaming at the television when they traded down in the second round to get a fifth round pick back. I wanted them to pick either Wagner or Kendricks. I didn't think they had a shot at either when they moved down.

I never wanted Tavon. Several of the posters here that migrated from RRF know that. Trading up to get him was a bad choice and I never liked it.
Click to expand...
Regardless if you liked or didn't like it at the time doesn't matter, it wasn't a bad move and we would be talking a lot differently about this if Shittenheimer didn't decide to do dumb shit with Tavon like use him almost exclusively as our in between the tackles 'running specialist' in games. I'm thinking Cignetti will use him right and we'll get some decent return finally on his offensive side of play.
 
kurtfaulk said:
.

the rams are gonna give up brockers to move up 3 spots.

gee that sounds feasible.

hurry up and come draft so we don't have to hear anymore of this crap.

.
Click to expand...

I will be really shocked and disappointed if the Rams made this trade! Personally, I think Brockers is very valuable to the Rams (And, At a very reasonable price for the next two years!) and I would think Brockers for the #7 pick straight up would be more feasible than Brockers AND the Rams #10 pick!
 
Brockers is not a glamorous type of player he takes up space, attracts a lot of doubles and affects the run game.
He is not strictly a stat guy. Everyone on the DL cannot be a freak athlete, you need fundamentally solid contributors do not underestimate his value. Their is more to the parts in this rumor than we know NOW, tomorrow we will have our answers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shovelpass and paceram
I hope/think that this is a bs rumor. Or if Brockers is actually upset over his contract, this might be a scare tactic/ hardball maneuver from Fisher/Snead.
 
I think a lot of folks have amnesia..I remember when we didn't have Michael Brockers, and getting gashed up the gut it seemed like every game...Remember Adam Carriker? It seemed like a problem that we could never fix...Brockers was asked to do the no flashy DT thing...fewer sacks amd clog themiddle, and he did it well...Now we want to dump him for doing that? HUGE mistake HUGE
 
  • 5Like
Reactions: Leagueofshadows, Ramrocket, Memento and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back