Jump to content

LeotheLion

Members
  • Content Count

    1,478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

868 Pro Bowl

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This wouldn't prevent the Rams going with all the WRs but part me thinks they do like Trishton Jackson. I'd expect he'd at least be in contention for winning a roster spot again. I did like his college tape.
  2. I suppose while that is less cool it might be more relevant
  3. Wyatt Davis' dad played Alvin Mack in The Program. That's pretty good pedigree.
  4. You say this but then... Here is your original point. That Goff's stat line isn't satisfactory for most QBs in the playoffs. If we wanted to provide context to Goff's stat line, which of the following isn't relevant: 1. Goff's possessions/plays in the game 2. Goff's contract Your original position was would most QBs be happy with that performance. Do you actually believe using Tannehill thought to himself "I'm only a 22 million dollar QB so this wasn't fine". Of course not.
  5. Everyone realizes that. We are just able to acknowledge that the extension may have been a mistake and also understand that there is literally no out other than a trade. And that trade carries a sizeable dead cap hit. The Rams cannot decide Goff isn't worth the money and cut him and walk away clean. If we could, then it's a lot simpler to determine if Goff is playing up to his contract value. I feel this concept is probably too difficult for you though.
  6. This is pure nonsense. You claim Goff's stat line isn't great which is countered that it wasn't great because he had the least amount of possessions of any team this postseason due to the defense. He had 1 more play that the Titans and Bears but less possessions meaning he was able to sustain longer drives when he had the opportunities. I was comparing Goff to the people that had the ball a similar amount to show that QB performance is going to correlated with total plays at least from a bulk stat standpoint. And FWIW, Tannehill makes $29M/year. It's the silliest thing to dump on Goff whe
  7. There's no other QB that had the ball a comparable amount. There were several QBs that had the ball more and had worse performances. Tannehill is a good QB. He just put up 2 consecutive seasons that dwarfs anything Stafford has ever done who apparently would put the Rams over the top. But again, with some unfortunate people nothing matters other than a sunk cost contract.
  8. It wasn't jaw dropping because the defense was so bad. The Rams only had 50 plays of offense. The defense gave up long drives all day that gave the offense no chance. I looked it up out of curiosity, the average # of plays in the playoffs is 65. The only teams to have less plays were the Titans and Bears at 49. But The Titans had 9 possessions and the Bears had 10. The Rams only had 8. And aside from a complete garbage time TD, Trubisky and Tannehill put up significantly worse numbers.
  9. The Patriots was a legitimate hatred across almost every fanbase. The Chiefs are like a Golden State Warriors level of jealousy. You appreciate they are really fun to watch but it's annoying watching them literally almost never lose.
  10. I think before then. You had the RG3 trade, Goff trade, and Watkins trades before the 2017 season. Plus the Rams are always one of the more active teams moving up and down in the drafts.
  11. Not if our defense gives up 32 in the divisional round like they did this year. My point is more that winning a SB requires quite a bit of luck. It's not worth it to me to mortgage the future for what I see as a 2 year chance. I'd mortgage for Watson because that is closer to 8+ years. I think the difference between prior trades and Rodgers is the outlook was always more than 2 years. Goff: traded multiple picks for but has been our QB for multiple years. Good trade, you can debate extension but the trade was a win. Watkins: traded a 2nd, got 1 year of fairly disappointing production
  12. I can get behind the Watson excitement and he'd be worth mortgaging the future for, but Rodgers would be too risky. We'd potentially be trading picks in year's where Rodgers isn't on the team. And let's not forget most people that are desperate to move on from Goff want a mobile QB. While Rodgers is more mobile than Goff, he still has some struggles without an elite OL. He'd be an upgrade but if he came here behind our current OL we wouldn't be getting MVP Rodgers.
  13. It's just due to age and positional importance. I love Donald and would be extremely dirty to trade him to Houston but it's the right move if that was the offer. And we've seen Donald's peak (at least close since he's 29), Watson will continue to get better.
  14. I would prefer not to trade him but he's the most movable player asset which is needed in a package with limited draft resources. If teams don't want him, that's cool. I don't pretend to watch every corner but I think minimum it's safe to say he just had a top 30 corner season.
  15. There's much less dead cap if it's a trade. That's the only way he's not on the team next year.
×
×
  • Create New...