I'm wrong

Quote
zn

Quote
hammer
aking a known productive player for a first here was a move which eliminated the risk inherent in the draft.

You know no one "assumed" that they would get a good player.

I know I for one said they COULD get a good player there. But that's not the same as assuming they would.

As for your last point (quoted) I agree. As I say earlier in another post in this thread:

Quote

Relatively speaking, are you better off trading for an already proven and successful young vet than you are drafting a player in the bottom 3rd of the 1st round? Chances are, yes.

Apparently I did say that, and, in retrospect you're right, that's the wrong way to put it.

Earlier I said

Quote

I assume whoever the Rams would have picked at 23 in the 2018 draft would have been a good player.

Later I put it differently and I stand by this later version:

Quote

Could the Rams get a good player with the 23rd pick? We have to say yes to that...a no answer would just be goofy. Yes OF COURSE they could.

"Could" is obviously better.

So I stand corrected.

Though no matter which way I put it both times I was defending the Cook trade. Even if you DO *assume* they would have gotten (as opposed to could have gotten) a good pick there, the trade is defensible IMO. Cooks is a young 3 time 1000 yard receiver who fits what McV wants from his X receiver, and so yeah you can justify that trade I think. I think the majority agree.




...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2018 12:16PM by zn.