(01-11-2021, 04:13 PM)RicoTx Wrote:

(01-11-2021, 04:05 PM)The_Franchise_QB Wrote: He wasn’t hard to move, he netted 2 first rounders, does that suggest otherwise? Truly, you are right we don’t know. Not arguing with that. My gripe is the NFL has long been a player for pick trade style, and I’ve been long against it. The only teams this strategy works out for are ones with solid GMs. Patriots long known for trading players for picks, but they hit on the picks. We are a perennial top 10 draft pick team trading a superstar away because he is upset at a guy in charge who puts the clocks 15 mins ahead. Madness lol. 

So what’s that right move? IMO I think at the very least we could of gotten a probowl talent back. Instead we let the guy who picked Taven Bryan in the 20s make more selections. That’s what irks me. I just felt like we traded Ramsey for 2 Bryan’s. Let’s see what we do with the next pick with hopefully a solid GM. O line for TLAW would be a start.

That doesn't make any sense.  You just said player for player is rarely (if ever) done.  I don't see how you think we could have gotten a pro bowl talent back.

As to your first point, I think it suggests working a good deal.  And many of the 'experts' agreed.

Player for player deals are rarely done in the NFL because every GM thinks they are the smartest guy in the room. They believe they will hit on the picks and have that player on a rookie deal. On the surface player for pick deals look great- as long as your GM hits right? When they don't you get fleeced. The risk/reward IMO isn't worth trading a superstar for picks. I do believe a player for player deal could have been achieved. Give me Kupp, I'll give you Ramsey. Is this weighted in the Rams favor? Yes, it is. But it is a lot better than two Bryans.

---