[Rams1PlateSince1976]

I too believe Josh Reynolds is the weak link of our WR's and could certainly be upgraded whether by better play by him or someone else. Kupp getting hurt was a major loss. The cheatriots can't double team Woods if Cooper Kupp is on the field.

[dieterbrock]

3 games missed and 9 catches over his last 4 games.
http://www.nfl.com/player/robertwoods/2 ... eason=2016

Seymour was years past his holdout, so I'm not sure the relevance.
His monster bonus was irrelevant to *what he was owed*.

His last 2 games he was fine. So he ended normal.
Seymour was in the last year of his contract. And had been a holdout previously. Meaning? He was going to be a problem after the season. That’s why he was traded. (New England also had Woolfork to re-sign)
In the last year of his deal
For a 1st round pick
Apples
To Woods oranges

[AltiTude Ram]

This is a bad idea from start.

Woods is well performing above his contract.

The Rams would generate far less value on the field by trading the affordable proven talent for a speciulave draft pick.

There are other ways to create cap space without trading one of your best players that happens to be underpaid at his position.

There's a saying about "Not fixing something that isn't broke".

Stupid idea gauged off of depth at the WR position.

There's a reason why Woods had over 1200 yards receiving and at a moderate cost.

The original poster has been on the anti-Woods drivel for some time and is obviously trying to make stupid sound smart. 🤔

[/zn/]

btw.. the Rams last two first round picks are Gerald Everett and Rob Havenstein.

Typo? 2nd round picks. Their last 2 1st round picks of course are Goff and Gurley.

[dieterbrock]

My point was Woods has had his own health issues. It had a real impact on his season.

Seymour may have been a problem, but we don't know that.
He played the 09 season on same deal.

I'm not saying the deals are the same.

If you're suggesting that people weren't surprised by the deal at the time, I don't know what to tell you.

Well no, you’re moving the goal posts now. Woods is not injury prone. WR miss games. And 2 a year is not the same as Marshall, who is injury prone. He’s missed 5 games in 2 of the last 3.
And yes, Seymour was going to be a problem. He already was when he held out. Then both he and Wilfork were going to be FA after the season. The Pats could only keep and sign one so they kept the younger of the 2 and signed him to a monster extension after the season. 5 years 40 million. (After franchise tagging him)
Of course Seymour played 09 on the same deal, he was traded as the season began, he was also Franchise tagged by Oakland after the season and then signed 2 monster deals.
Point is?
He’s nowhere near a viable comparison to Woods.
Woods has 3 years left, and a team friendly deal.
Seymour was on his last year and was looking at a contract the Pats couldn’t afford.
So while a fun topic, there hasn’t been a reasonable comparable scenario to the Patriots way.
If anything, having a top 10-15 WR and paying him like a top 30-40 guy, is exactly what the Patriots way is

[MikeRam]

Suppose we trade Woods and Kupp isn't 100% at the beginning of the season and maybe re-injures something. Coming back from a knee injury is not automatic. Look at Wentz. No coach in his right mind would do this. You don't trade away your best receiver when he has 3 years left on a sweetheart deal. Especially when another of your top 3 receivers is coming back from a serious injury. This is really not a serious topic.

[dieterbrock]

He missed 6 games over the course of two years before having a healthy year. His play was also significantly impacted in at least two more games in 16.
Not sure how or why that's a bad comparison to Marshall. Players get hurt. I remember people here being apoplectic that Saffold was made of glass. Things change.

Holy moly... the concept isn't.. "hey, see.. it's exactly the same thing!!!"

It's that trades happen that surprise us. Trades involving valuable players.

And.. again.. I'm looking at improving the Rams overall roster. If you want to go with "draft picks are a crapshoot", fine.
But the Rams recent track record suggests they'd do okay. I'd say, worst case, they'd get a starting FS out of that second round pick... and 6 million to spend upgrading in other places.

OF COURSE there would be impact on the offense. My feeling is that, based on resources currently on the roster and draft picks, that impact would be offset, for the most part.

Say they use the 6 million on a mid-level pass rusher opposite Fowler.. someone like Shaq Barrett?
I would suggest you've upgraded 2 positions (because you have no FS right now, or Blake Countess) *appreciably* while downgrading one.

Ok, no sense getting caught up in semantics. Robert Woods *was* an injury concern when we signed him, fair enough.
Again, I appreciate the out of the box idea here, its provoked some good debates. (And I know you've been a fan of Woods)
I just think that with his contract and performance, I would consider moving him for a 1st rounder would be a legitimate discussion, but if he only pulls in a 3rd or 4th rounder, it just doesn't compute for me

[MikeRam]

In one sense, of course, this is a serious topic because a lot of people have commented. Where it's not serious is that not a single NFL coach would do this because of the reasons I've stated. Going off on a tangent, would you trade Woods straight across for Antonio Brown? I'm betting no. And why not? Because AB(or big chest of you prefer) is just too expensive and Woods is cheap.

[PARAM]

This was an interesting proposal designed to promote discussion.

You get cap relief and, I would think, a second round pick.

This is from my “what would Belichick do” thought process.

After 12 pages of discussion, I don't think I've read a post in favor of Dick's roster proposal. First off, the cap savings would be $3,650,000 while the dead money would be $3,525,000. Wow, 3.6 mil? Most might say, on that alone it's a bad idea. The 2nd round pick? Even if we got something that high for him, who cares? Who would be available in the 2nd round who would produce like Woods?

But lets go on. In 2006 and 2007 Torry Holt had seasons of 1188 and 1189 receiving yards. The Rams would go 8-8 and 3-13 (11-21 for those needing a calculator). Shitty right (not Big Game but the team)? It would be another 9 years before a Ram receiver would amass 1,000 yards (Britt 1002 in 2016). It would be also another 11 years for the Rams to match or better that 2006 record of 8-8. Robert Woods is as responsible for that as anybody and by the way, he's amassed 2,000 the last two seasons while the Rams have gone 24-8. Based on that alone most fans might think it's a bad proposal.

Add everything up, the limited cap savings vs. the dead money, the 2nd round pick and the production that would go out the window with Woods, the team's record with Woods as one of the primary receivers and most fans might think the idea bad. Perhaps terrible. Maybe even absurd. In 12 pages of responses and re-replies by Dick84, I have read nothing that supports a move like this making the least bit of sense. So what's the verdict? Would this be an acceptable move to make.....even if you were Bill Belichick?