Quote
guinnessram
I am using stats. I am not talking about what "could have been" . We made the wrong choice. Simple as that.
Argument over. Actually, if you go by what happened since both have been drafted, there is no argument.
Kevin P.
Unfortunately, that's really faulty logic. If the Rams had taken Suh, there's simply no way to predict what he would have done and how the Rams whether the Rams would have progressed any further.
I mean, the dominoes that would drastically change with this scenario are pretty significant IMO. First of all, if the Rams take Suh in 2010 what happens at #2? The Lions already had Stafford so they wouldn't have taken him so does some team trade up? Pretty reasonable to assume so. If so, which one? There really wasn't an either/or #1 and #2 QB in that draft so the Lions could have got a pretty good return for trading out of the #2 spot.
Denver was the next team to take a QB that year and that was Tim Tebow at #25. Moving up to #2 would have been pricey but since we can assume they wanted a QB, what if Bradford had gone to the Broncos instead of the Rams/Eagles/Vikings?
Or, what if no one trades? Detroits passes at 2, TB likely does too since they had Freeman so, the Shanahan led Redskins would certainly take Bradford at #4. Limping along with a washed-up McNabb, I don't think there's any way that Shanahan would pass on Bradford. So, with a QB guru and in a passer friendly system, Bradford potentially winds up in a lot better spot.
Circling back to the Rams, now that the Redskins have their QBOTF in 2010, they don't make the RGIII trade with the Rams in 2012. Do the Rams stay at #2 and take RGIII? McDaniels was the OC that year but would he have been brought in to install the spread if Bradford wasn't already there? Would he have wanted RGIII?
Lot of interesting things to consider that get a lot more complicated than just assuming Suh was a better choice.