2012 NFL Offseason thread

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

I don't know...the question is, do you come down on the Saints, Williams or Both. It's apparent that he has had the bounty with every organization he was with..

And if you come down on the Saints...do you go back and come down on all the teams that have had players come to light with the "Yeah we had it too.."

I believe they will.

[Kodos]

I hope they hammer everyone involved.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

They need to ban Gregg Williams from ever working in the NFL again.

Well, he admitted to administering the program in NO. Why would he do that other than a specific threat that lying about it would result in a lifetime ban. I suspect he was informed prior to being interviewed that if he was not truthful in his responses, such a ban would be coming.

I think he'll be suspended for a year though, Payton 4-8 games, and Tom Benson will just go ahead and fire Loomis.

[spleen1015]

From just listening to the radio today, it sounds like this 'Bounty' stuff goes on with every team and in the case of Williams, he may be the only coach involved?

If it is a fairly common thing in the NFL, what can you do? The NFL better not penalize the Redskins because of this. There's no one there now that would have been involved back then. Why punish the 2012 Redskins for something the 2004-2007 Redskins did?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

From just listening to the radio today, it sounds like this 'Bounty' stuff goes on with every team and in the case of Williams, he may be the only coach involved?

If it is a fairly common thing in the NFL, what can you do? The NFL better not penalize the Redskins because of this. There's no one there now that would have been involved back then. Why punish the 2012 Redskins for something the 2004-2007 Redskins did?

It may have been common in the "off the record" sort of way. I really think a lot of teams have started to realize the severity of concussions and sort of called off the dogs on the dirty stuff that was so common 20 years ago. Its the old school mentality and coaches not wanting to change that are probably still using some sort of bounty methods.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

From just listening to the radio today, it sounds like this 'Bounty' stuff goes on with every team and in the case of Williams, he may be the only coach involved?

If it is a fairly common thing in the NFL, what can you do? The NFL better not penalize the Redskins because of this. There's no one there now that would have been involved back then. Why punish the 2012 Redskins for something the 2004-2007 Redskins did?

Institutional control. The team is the entity being punished--not the individual coaches and players. I agree that it would be insane to fine Mike Shanahan or the current defensive coaches for this. But it makes perfect sense to dock the team draft choices and/or fine the team.

[Hoya1]

Coy Wire was on the radio this morning talking about the system while Williams was a headcoach in Buffalo
http://wgr550.com/topic/play_window....udioId=5721068


Also, Bills sign Stevie Johnson! whew!

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

I don't know...the question is, do you come down on the Saints, Williams or Both. It's apparent that he has had the bounty with every organization he was with..

And if you come down on the Saints...do you go back and come down on all the teams that have had players come to light with the "Yeah we had it too.."

Depends on the type of bounty. If it was to injure other players, then it's likely. Hard hits are fine. If it's strictly player-led then it's probably fine. But when it's led by the coaches, it's income that circumvents the salary cap and when you remember that the Saints were told to quit this and didn't, then that's a major problem. It's the combination of all those factors that will do them in.

Originally Posted by spleen1015

If it is a fairly common thing in the NFL, what can you do? The NFL better not penalize the Redskins because of this. There's no one there now that would have been involved back then. Why punish the 2012 Redskins for something the 2004-2007 Redskins did?

I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. Just because the team wasn't caught in 2007 doesn't mean they're not responsible. Just because they've sucked enough to have a different coaching staff doesn't mean the team should get away with this kind of activity. If Bellicheck retired in 2008 and then Spygate was uncovered, should the Patsies have gotten away with it just because Bill wasn't coaching anymore? If it involves the coaching staff, it's an organizational thing and the organization pays the penalties.

But there is an interesting point here...what if the NFL starts suspending the players involved? What happens if a former Saints player is on another team and is implicated in this scheme? There's 22 to 27 players suspected of being involved. If they suspend a player, it will hurt his current team and not the Saints. So my guess is they'll only fine players involved because there's no way to dish out the punishment without it unfairly hurting teams that had no involvement. Vilma, however...he may be in serious trouble.

[spleen1015]

STFU. It is not dumb. If there's players in Washington that were involved, then punishment them. The entire organization is different today other than Snyder. No one there is responsible for it. The organization shouldn't be punished.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

STFU. It is not dumb. If there's players in Washington that were involved, then punishment them. The entire organization is different today other than Snyder. No one there is responsible for it. The organization shouldn't be punished.

Again. No one is suggesting that the current players or coaches who came in after the activity should be fined, or suspended, or punished in any way.

But the organization--which demonstrated a lack of institutional control and allowed it to happen--can and should be punished.

I'm not even sure how your system would work in practice. If < 33% of the janitorial staff is still employed, then you can punish the organization. If 2 assistant coaches and 4 players remain, then that is not enough to punish the team. But if 3 assistant coaches, 6 players and a ball boy are still there, then you can dock them a 6th round pick. I mean, how messy a system do you want?

Do the crime, do the time. And I bet that next time, Mr. Snyder (and future owners) does what it takes to keep things running within the rules under his watch.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

STFU. It is not dumb. If there's players in Washington that were involved, then punishment them. The entire organization is different today other than Snyder. No one there is responsible for it. The organization shouldn't be punished.

The organization is responsible for the actions of its employees. As such, the Washington Redskins are responsible for it, regardless of who was coaching or who was wearing the helmets at the time. End of story. Just because the Redskins have sucked so badly that they've turned over their coaching staff and players (multiple times!) since then doesn't mean they should get a free pass over a team that hasn't. If the best thing you can claim is that the Redskins instability should exempt them from punishment, you don't have a very strong argument.

If Sean Peyton and Mickey Loomis quit today, should the Saints not be responsible for their actions? As I asked before (and you failed to answer), if Belichick retired before Spygate, are you seriously claiming that the Patriots shouldn't have been punished?

[spleen1015]

The biggest difference in what we're talking about is this is all current offense for the Saints. It was current offenses for the Patriots. Everyone involved within the organization is still there. That is not the case with the Redskins. It is 5 years later and no current players or coaches were involved.

If the Saints or the Patriots situations came out 5 years down the line and no one in the organization was there when it happened, then I don't think they should be punished.

The Saints should be punished because it happened last year. It doesn't matter if Payton and Loomis are there or not. Same with the Patriots. In both of this situations the teams were caught while they were doing it.

If the Redskins get punished, then the Cowboys should be punished because Woodson was on Mike & Mike this morning and said the Cowboys did it when he was with them.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

The biggest difference in what we're talking about is this is all current offense for the Saints. It was current offenses for the Patriots. Everyone involved within the organization is still there. That is not the case with the Redskins. It is 5 years later and no current players or coaches were involved.

If the Saints or the Patriots situations came out 5 years down the line and no one in the organization was there when it happened, then I don't think they should be punished.

The Saints should be punished because it happened last year. It doesn't matter if Payton and Loomis are there or not. Same with the Patriots. In both of this situations the teams were caught while they were doing it.

If the Redskins get punished, then the Cowboys should be punished because Woodson was on Mike & Mike this morning and said the Cowboys did it when he was with them.

That's an entirely arbitrary standard and it can be picked apart pretty easily.

As has been pointed out, the continuity of the players/coaching staff makes no difference in the punishment. You just said it yourself since "it doesn't matter if Payton and Loomis are there or not". So you just neutered part of your own argument - it doesn't matter if the organization is the same or not.

So now you're on to some sort of imaginary NFL Statute of Limitations as it comes to crimes and punishments. There's no such standard in the NFL rule book - the Commish has the sole authority to determine punishment. That no one remains isn't relevant. FYI, the NFL has already established precedence on this. The Broncos were fined in 2004 for circumventing the salary cap...from 1996-1998! There is no Statute of Limitations. So there goes the other part of your argument.

As such, sorry for you, the Redskins can clearly be punished if their actions warrant it. Sorry that it's your team and all, but they need to be held responsible for the actions of their players and coaching staff.

As for Woodson's comments, was he specific that the organization had such a bounty system or that the players had such a system? Was that system for big hits or for the removal of players from the game? Were the bonuses awarded strictly from the player's funds or did they include funds from the coaching staff? Because those distinctions make a big difference in whether or not this was an organizational problem.

[Logan]

A big part of the difference in punishment will come from two factors:

1. The Saints (and other teams) were warned about this and they kept on doing it.

2. Alleged emails where Payton acknowledges that it is taking place. Having your head coach implicated is huge, IMO.

Absent any similarities to the above, I think the Bills and Redskins will both get hit with fines and maybe a loss of a 3rd or 4th round pick, but nothing that measures what the Saints will receive.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

That's an entirely arbitrary standard and it can be picked apart pretty easily.

As has been pointed out, the continuity of the players/coaching staff makes no difference in the punishment. You just said it yourself since "it doesn't matter if Payton and Loomis are there or not". So you just neutered part of your own argument - it doesn't matter if the organization is the same or not.

So now you're on to some sort of imaginary NFL Statute of Limitations as it comes to crimes and punishments. There's no such standard in the NFL rule book - the Commish has the sole authority to determine punishment. That no one remains isn't relevant. FYI, the NFL has already established precedence on this. The Broncos were fined in 2004 for circumventing the salary cap...from 1996-1998! There is no Statute of Limitations. So there goes the other part of your argument.

As such, sorry for you, the Redskins can clearly be punished if their actions warrant it. Sorry that it's your team and all, but they need to be held responsible for the actions of their players and coaching staff.

As for Woodson's comments, was he specific that the organization had such a bounty system or that the players had such a system? Was that system for big hits or for the removal of players from the game? Were the bonuses awarded strictly from the player's funds or did they include funds from the coaching staff? Because those distinctions make a big difference in whether or not this was an organizational problem.

Grats, your penis is bigger than mine.

We'll see what happens.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Grats, your penis is bigger than mine.

We'll see what happens.

Wow, what a manly and mature response to being shown your position is clearly incorrect! I bet you're a hit at parties.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Wow, what a manly and mature response to being shown your position is clearly incorrect! I bet you're a hit at parties.

Dude was complementing you on your penis size, and this is how you respond?

[Rizon]

Originally Posted by molson

Dude was complementing you on your penis size, and this is how you respond?

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Wow, what a manly and mature response to being shown your position is clearly incorrect! I bet you're a hit at parties.

I reply to your post with my additional points, you tell me they are dumb. Then I respond again, you argue them some more, then I do, then you do, then I do then you do then me then you then me then you.....

It is not a matter of being right or wrong. Our opinions differ. Nothing more.

You couldn't even accept my concession with out trying to insult me.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by molson

Dude was complementing you on your penis size, and this is how you respond?

Well, let's be honest. If some dude was walking around at a party telling people I have a big penis, while flattering, would definitely be awkward.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

Dude was complementing you on your penis size, and this is how you respond?

I was complimenting him. What, you thought it was sarcasm? How dare you!

Plus, if he knows my penis size, my wife is going to have some serious questions.

[RedKingGold]

Blackadar comes off as a dick, what else is new?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Blackadar comes off as a dick, what else is new?

But as usual I'm right, so suck it.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I dont think "most defensive players" have the goal of knocking out the other teams best players. I think it was a Giants player that was asked about knocking Brady out of the game prior to the Super Bowl. His comment was "I respect Brady as a player and respect his livelihood as a man, we are not out their trying to injury players." I hope this is how most defensive players feel.

I fear that you probably don't want to know the answer to that question. And I'd bet that was a made for TV comment not a sincere feeling.

Originally Posted by Autumn

Yeah, there's a pretty distinct difference between encouraging big hits, and encouraging injuries. Even my high school team, we got stickers for big hits. That's football, that's part of what we love about it. That's hugely different than encouraging injuries, even if big hits and injuries are related.

To me, you want to hit the guys so hard they have a hard time getting back up. But then they do and go back in the huddle, knowing they just got clocked. If you're trying to send guys to the bench you're basically saying, "We're not good enough to beat your starters, so we'll try some other way of winning."

"got clocked" probably means "slightly concussed"...I wanted to "hurt but not injure" every person I ever hit in a game from pop warner on up...as did anyone who palyed the game "right" in my opinion. However if injuries happen, they happen. There is ZERO difference between a helmet sticker at 15 and $5k at 29 to millionaires. The money didn't motivate the hit the satisfaction of having that money handed to them by their peers did.

Originally Posted by Doug5984

Looks like I'm in the minority on this one, I don't have a problem with a "bounty" system- if they are legal hits. If there are illegal hits then throw a flag, fine, and suspend the player.

I want to see big hits, legal hits. Sheldon Brown hitting Reggie in the playoffs a few years ago is a great example. I hope that he got paid for that hit, it was beautiful. Pierre Thomas getting rocked against the 49ers is another, that was a game changing play and was a HUGE play in the 49ers winning the game. What is so wrong with having players reward each other for big hits? Is that different than a RB buying his entire line a gift after the season for laying down good blocks? (Linemen block, defenders tackle).

There is nothing wrong with wanting to knock guys out of the game- again, as long as they are legal hits. Any illegal hits- throw the flag, fine the player, suspend the player, hell throw the player out of the game if it is flagrant. I'm good with all that.

They are making this such a huge deal, and I'd be willing to bet this happens on almost every team and every level of football, and probably hockey as well. Big hits are part of the game.

And regarding the Favre NFC Champ game- that should have nothing to do with bounties, that was about winning the NFC Championship game and part of the plan was to continually hit Favre because it would lead to turnovers. (I think most teams say - we need to get the QB to create turnovers, I think that is one of the most common sayings in football, it's the same thing) If there was no bounty in place the game plan remains the same.

I'm not saying I want to see players go for knees and end seasons/careers. That should never be tolerated, and if it is ever deemed intentional that player should have the book thrown at them, and suspensions should be lengthy.

I don't want to see players launch helmet to helmet- I think this has gone a little to far in the other direction this year, but there have been some bad hits like this that have derailed careers, and these should be dealt with harshly.

I do want to see hard hits, I want to see defenders jar the ball lose, and get into a QBs head and make him make mistakes.

I do not have a problem with players rewarding each other for ANY type of play, I do not have a problem with coaches rewarding players for plays, as long as it doesn't start violating the cap, if a coach comes in and slaps 5k on the table and says whoever gets the first turnover takes this home- that's ok in my book, if it gets up to 6 figures then you have cap issues, and IRS problems.

Eliminating all the specifics about Favre, NFC Championship game, etc. I agree whole-heartedly. To me this is a lot like a personal accountability argument. EIther they broke the rules of the game and should have been punished regardless of their motivation, or they did not break the rules and regardless of what was offered or said they deserve no fine.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

The biggest difference in what we're talking about is this is all current offense for the Saints. It was current offenses for the Patriots. Everyone involved within the organization is still there. That is not the case with the Redskins. It is 5 years later and no current players or coaches were involved.

If the Saints or the Patriots situations came out 5 years down the line and no one in the organization was there when it happened, then I don't think they should be punished.

The Saints should be punished because it happened last year. It doesn't matter if Payton and Loomis are there or not. Same with the Patriots. In both of this situations the teams were caught while they were doing it.

If the Redskins get punished, then the Cowboys should be punished because Woodson was on Mike & Mike this morning and said the Cowboys did it when he was with them.

This is a ridiculous standard that actually gives incentive to a team for covering something up. Why would anyone come clean right away under your scenario? Just wait it out 5 years and then say, yeah we cheated but hardly anyone is still here so you can't punish us. That's crazy.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I was complimenting him. What, you thought it was sarcasm? How dare you!

Plus, if he knows my penis size, my wife is going to have some serious questions.

Once you go Blackadar, you never go backadar?

[DougW]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If I hear/read one more paper towel joke, I am going to kill someone.

So a Detroit Lion, a priest, and a paper towel walk into a bar ...

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by stevew

Once you go Blackadar, you never go backadar?

I like that!

Back to the discussion regarding the Saints...the more I think about this, the more I think they're in serious trouble.

• The addition of non-player money sources is a clear violation of the salary cap. When Williams put in his own dough, it became a cap violation. The NFL does not look upon cap violations lightly.
• From what I've read, an outside contributor actually put some money in the pot as well, which is a serious no-no. That starts to edge into gambling, which was a massive problem for the NFL and is the source of a year-long ban of Karras and Hornung back in the 60s. While that may have not been the intent here, it still stinks if true. The NFL won't treat that lightly.
• They were told to stop and didn't. Stupid, stupid, stupid. You can't violate the laws of GODell.
• There was a clear intent in the program to injure other players. It's one thing to reward hard hits, but it's entirely another to reward injuring other players. That might have gotten swept under the rug in past years, but...
• With the league being sued by former players over concussions and the general fears about safety in football, this couldn't have come at a worse time. If GODell doesn't come down hard, it's going to look like he's sweeping this under the rug. He has no choice but to make an example of the Saints, if just to ward off potential lawsuits.
• There's visual evidence that Saints players did try to injure opposing QBs. It's pretty clear that the Saints tried to injure Brett Farve during their Super Bowl run and did end the career of Kurt Warner. Whether or not that is due to the bonuses is almost beside the point, because the perception is going to be that the bounty program was an influencing factor in dirty play.
• It doesn't help that the Saints have led the league in personal fouls on opposing QBs the last couple of years. Again, perception is reality here.

Add all these factors up and the Saints, Williams, Loomis, Vilma and a few others are in serious trouble. If they suspended James Harrison for a game after a bang-bang play, what are they going to do with organizations, coaches and players who put money in a pot with the express intent to injure those players?

If a team like the 'Skins are found to have run a program like this, they may just get fined a low draft choice...maybe a 4th or a 5th. It's not going to help when former Redskins players come out and talk about bounties being set before the game (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...015992.column), but they'll get off lightly. However, the Saints are probably in for a world of hurt on this one.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

"got clocked" probably means "slightly concussed"...I wanted to "hurt but not injure" every person I ever hit in a game from pop warner on up...as did anyone who palyed the game "right" in my opinion. However if injuries happen, they happen. There is ZERO difference between a helmet sticker at 15 and $5k at 29 to millionaires. The money didn't motivate the hit the satisfaction of having that money handed to them by their peers did.

But you missed my point. There is a distinction between a reward for hitting and a reward for injuring. My coaches would never have given us extra praise because we injured someone when we hit them. They'd give us a hell of a lot of praise for how hard we hit the guy. And yes, that could possibly cause an injury. But mostly it could cause a tackle, and intimidation, and that was the point. It sounds like this bounty was not about good hits, it was about injuries. that's more than ZERO difference, it's an incredible difference.

[spleen1015]

The fact that they were told to stop and didn't is the biggest offense, in my mind. I would think that would carry some harshest penalties. I think Williams is going to get a 1 year suspension, but I think he deserves more, maybe even a ban for life.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

The fact that they were told to stop and didn't is the biggest offense, in my mind. I would think that would carry some harshest penalties. I think Williams is going to get a 1 year suspension, but I think he deserves more, maybe even a ban for life.

I think Williams should be banned for life but won't. If he's banned for life, he's liable to sue the NFL to try and have it lifted and that would probably result in the airing of a lot of dirty laundry.

[miked]

Maybe we should make a prediction thread

[Suburban Rhythm]

Just when you thought things couldn't get worse for the Saints

Former Pro Bowler Randy Moss to work out for Saints Tuesday | SI Tracking Blog – Tracking the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and NCAA On Twitter

[molson]

Originally Posted by Suburban Rhythm

Just when you thought things couldn't get worse for the Saints

Former Pro Bowler Randy Moss to work out for Saints Tuesday | SI Tracking Blog – Tracking the MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL, and NCAA On Twitter

Is it legal to offer bounties to encourage Moss to try?

[spleen1015]

Colts have until Friday at 4:00 p.m. ET to cut Peyton | ProFootballTalk

Colts have until 4pm Friday. I don't get why they are waiting so long. If you're not going to cut him, what's the hold up?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Colts have until Friday at 4:00 p.m. ET to cut Peyton | ProFootballTalk

Colts have until 4pm Friday. I don't get why they are waiting so long. If you're not going to cut him, what's the hold up?

because irsay's an attention craving cunt?

[Ksyrup]

HA! This is the status of sports "reporting" these days. ESPN has been running with the March 8th deadline forever, and this morning La Canfora tweeted about the Sunday deadline. And I happen to be listening to M&M on ESPN Radio and sure enough, about an hour later, Chris Mortensen sends M&M a note that March 8th is really not the true deadline, it's Sunday. Too bad he didn't wait for Mike Florio's post to correct the correction.

[spleen1015]

One would think that they would make sure they knew what the deadline is. March 8th has been the reported date by everyone for a long time. How come no one verified it before this week?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

trying to win a pr war with the player that built your franchise is such a shitty thing to do.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

trying to win a pr war with the player that built your franchise is such a shitty thing to do.

I don't even get how there is a PR war to be won here.

This isn't a Favre situation. Peyton has never wavered, to my knowledge, from wanting to play QB in Indy.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

HA! This is the status of sports "reporting" these days. ESPN has been running with the March 8th deadline forever, and this morning La Canfora tweeted about the Sunday deadline. And I happen to be listening to M&M on ESPN Radio and sure enough, about an hour later, Chris Mortensen sends M&M a note that March 8th is really not the true deadline, it's Sunday. Too bad he didn't wait for Mike Florio's post to correct the correction.

Andrew Brandt has the language from the contract. Pretty sure he gets the date right - the option date is 5 days before the start of the league year - the 8th. That is the last date they can pay the money and keep him. If they do nothing by the 11th, they have to pay him the money and they lose him.

Mort correcting everyone on the date is him not being able to read Brandt's column correctly.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by wade moore

I don't even get how there is a PR war to be won here.

This isn't a Favre situation. Peyton has never wavered, to my knowledge, from wanting to play QB in Indy.

'he's broken and not worth the money he's owed. he can stay at a much reduced salary. but let it be known if he leaves it was his decision.'

that's bullshit.

[Logan]

Yeah Irsay tried to turn it into PR war with his stance that if Peyton really wants to stay, he can. Problem is no one bought it because everyone knows it makes much more sense for both to part ways.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

How much did Jimmy Graham get for taking out Sean Payton?

[cartman]

Let the bidding begin!

Sources -- Indianapolis Colts to part with Peyton Manning Wednesday - ESPN

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Colts have until Friday at 4:00 p.m. ET to cut Peyton | ProFootballTalk

Colts have until 4pm Friday. I don't get why they are waiting so long. If you're not going to cut him, what's the hold up?

trying to get all the season ticket renews in 1st (i think that deadline was today?)

[Racer]

Originally Posted by Chubby

trying to get all the season ticket renews in 1st (i think that deadline was today?)

The deadline I think was last Friday or Saturday.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Racer

The deadline I think was last Friday or Saturday.

i knew there was like a week window between season ticket deadline and the roster bonus deadline

[Blackadar]

Interesting...Peyton was released today. That's good for him - since he's now an unrestricted free agent, he can be signed now and can get out in front of the impending March 13th free agent market. If he's smart, he locks up with someone in the next week before other options are available to teams.

The team that may lose in this whole thing is St. Louis if they don't make a deal for that #2 pick soon. If Washington grabs Manning and Miami signs Flynn, then the only reasonable suitor for RGIII is Cleveland. With only Cleveland bidding for that #2 spot, there's no bidding war for the #2 pick. After all, St. Louis and Minn aren't selecting RGIII, so it *could* happen that he drops to Cleveland at #4. So the Rams need to pull the trigger on moving #2 quickly.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The team that may lose in this whole thing is St. Louis if they don't make a deal for that #2 pick soon. If Washington grabs Manning and Miami signs Flynn, then the only reasonable suitor for RGIII is Cleveland. With only Cleveland bidding for that #2 spot, there's no bidding war for the #2 pick. After all, St. Louis and Minn aren't selecting RGIII, so it *could* happen that he drops to Cleveland at #4. So the Rams need to pull the trigger on moving #2 quickly.

I agree that St. Louis has a strong incentive to pull the trigger on moving #2 pick quickly, but it takes two to tango and as you've already pointed out, as it stands right now, these other teams have options. If Miami or Washington think they can sign Manning or Flynn, why trade a ton of picks to St. Louis before finding that out? The #2 pick isn't a must have for either of those teams until they have lost out on Manning/Flynn. There is just no such urgency.

I can't see the #2 pick being traded until after the free agent dust settles or, at the earliest, until after Manning and Flynn sign. After that happens, teams will know where they stand QB-wise.