Stafford traded to the Rams for Goff, multiple FRPs

[stl4life07]

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

To be fair though, they keep doing it, hence it feels like they're being singled out lol.

I mean, at this stage, the NFL should be penciling in the Rams draft team to show up a day later than everyone else to Draft Weekend (whenever they do it in-person again, anyways).

Hahaha I agree. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I personally dont think the Rams will continue to trade 1st round picks as long as Snead and McVay is together. Have people forgotten the first trade Snead made as the GM of the Rams was the RGIII trade in which they got a boatload of picks? That was before the draft. Then during the draft they traded down again with the Cowboys who wanted to move up to get Caliborne and the Rams took Brockers. So Snead started off as the Rams GM collecting picks because the roster needed talent in the worst way. Now the team has the roster to contend so Snead feels like if he can go get players to help the team win now he dont mind trading away picks. A rookie selected at 25th overall isnt going to help the Rams go into Lambeau and beat the Packers. A rookie in the late 1st round isnt going to go in Seattle and beat Wilson and the Seahawks. Ramsey will. Stafford I believe will. Thats the mindset Snead and McVay has. 

[CWood21]

9 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

They hired McVay and all I heard was young head coaches dont ever work. McVay is the youngest head coach in the NFL at 30. Then they go out and get Whitworth and Woods. All I heard was Whitworth was old and just looking for the last big payday. All I heard was Woods was vastly overpaid because he did little to nothing in Buffalo. The Rams proved all of that to be wrong. McVay has thrived and so did Whitworth and Woods.

Robert Woods really isn't doing anything that he wasn't doing in Buffalo.  The only difference is that the volume of targets he's getting with the Rams is significantly higher than it was in Buffalo.  And his catch rate going up is probably a byproduct of having Jared Goff throwing to him as opposed to the likes of Tyrod Taylor, Kyle Orton, and EJ Manuel.  The Whitworth signing was a bit surprising, because he's managed to stay relatively healthy given his age with the exception of this season.  I think people were more skeptical of McVay because of his short track record.  Not because he was young.  B

15 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

'Ok the Rams traded for Watkins. All I heard was he isnt going to stay healthy. Wasted pick. He did stay healthy the entire season and made an impact. Not the type of impact most Rams fans wouldve liked but he did make an impact. Then he walks and the Rams trade for Cooks. The first thing people said was Cooks is going to replace Watkins and isnt going to do much. All Cooks did was have over 1,000yds receiving and help lead the Rams to the Superbowl because Kupp was hurt for the playoffs. Looks like the Rams proved people wrong again.

The Watkins trade was bad at the time, and it still is bad now.  Four years of guys like DJ Chark, Carlton Davis, Fred Warner, etc. or one year of Sammy Watkins.  Dumb move was dumb then, it's still dumb now.  The Brandin Cooks' trade was blasted because you don't trade a FRP for a slot receiver when you can find a cheap one in the draft.  And it turned out significantly better because the Texans were dumb enough to throw their SRP on it.  So they "rented" Cooks for 2 years and downgraded from the first round to the second round.  But I'll pose the question, are they better off with 2 years of Cooks and then Jefferson or someone like Calvin Ridley?

21 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

Then the Rams traded for Peters, Talib, and signed Suh. All I heard was all those big personality. That was the same offseason as Cooks so people oddly lump Cooks in with all of them in terms of character issues in which Cooks was never a character issue guy. But yeah people said those guys are going to ruin the locker room. All they did was help the Rams go (13-3), shutdown Zeke in the playoffs, shutdown Brees and the Saints in the playoffs, and for most of the game make the Pats offense look terrible. So again the Rams proved everyone wrong.

They traded a SRP for Marcus Peters and then dealt him for a 5th round pick and IIRC he graded out terribly during that time.  I'm not sure how that's a win.  Not sure anyone really had issues with the Talib pickup.  And the Rams signed Suh for a 1 year deal, so really not a whole lot of risk there.

23 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

So now Im hearing the Rams overpaid for Stafford. MAYBE just MAYBE FINALLY people will get it right and this move wont work for the Rams. MAYBE this move will finally be the bad move but Im not going to bet against the Rams on this one because so far every big move they have made has worked out when it comes to trades and bringing in people. Even trading for Fowler Jr and then signing Floyd to replace Fowler Jr has worked. Im not doubting the Rams. But hey again who knows maybe this time they might have got it wrong lol. We shall see. 

Yet for how forward thinking this franchise is, they've got 1 Super Bowl appearance, 3 playoff trips, and two divisional titles to show for it.

[SkippyX]

18 hours ago, BearFromArgentina said:

This is a joke right? Not the trade, the judgment of value.

This is actually fair value.

I said he was not worth the 1st rounders and he's still not IMO.

• Rams disagreed / should have high 1st rounders

Getting out from Goff's contract is more value to the Rams so don't think of it as  QB swap.

The Rams bought Stafford AND freedom from the Goff contract.

That cost was the draft picks.

 

I'm not here to pass judgement on Goff but it was clear the Rams were ready to do that.

Edited January 31, 2021 by SkippyX

[CWood21]

20 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Yeah, it's being reported that Holmes and Co. viewed Goff as an important piece in this deal. If that's really the case, they were able to get 2 future 1sts and a 3rd this year along with a QB that they viewed highly.

I mean, be realistic here what exactly do you expect them to say?  Goff is a toxic contract, and we'll give him for a bag of potato chips and slurpee?  No, they're going to talk about how they value him highly.  They're going to try and rehab his value, and then flip him in an offseason or two for a profit.  I get it.  It's smart on Detroit's perspective with almost no downside here.

[Xenos]

16 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I feel like I've been higher on Stafford than the consensus for years, until apparently today. Now, some are overrating him. He's on the higher end of the averageish tier of QBs. I've also been lower on Goff historically than many, but even then, he's just on the lower end of the averageish tier of QBs. This is an upgrade for the Rams, but I really don't think it's a needle moving kind of upgrade. And the worst part is, he's 33. Or will be in a week, anyway. I get trying to go all-in on a superbowl window, but this is that to a level I can't agree with. You decreased your ability to add future talent, you put a hard end date on your superbowl window (Stafford's age), and again, I don't think the upgrade is that big. Stafford is Matt Ryan, or maybe Philip Rivers at best. He isn't the consistent carry.

This is probably the post that I agree with most. I think Stafford is better than Goff but given what the Rams gave up for him, I don’t think it moves the needle that much either.

[CWood21]

26 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

It's behind a paywall (of course), but The Athletic is reporting that WFT offered it's 1st and 3rd round pick this year.   

At 1.19, by pure book value, the Rams' offer was better.   I'm not sure I agree given the whiff rate does change as you move further back Rd1.    I definitely wouldn't have turned down a SF 1.12 or DEN 1.9 offer, but neither was offered by all reports. 

Whether WFT's 1.19 and 3.19 (and no Goff coming back with his contract), turns out to be a better offer, I think at least we can track & see.

Just depends on how you value future picks, and more importantly how you value Goff.  For a team like Detroit who is clearly in a rebuild situation that's at least 2-3 years away from competing for a playoffs spot, the multiple FRPs are more valuable.  And from my early glance at this draft class, I wouldn't say it's a particularly strong draft to be picking in the top 10 unless you're wanting a QB.  If you've already got your QB in place, you trade down like hell.

[Broncofan]

8 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

Hahaha I agree. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I personally dont think the Rams will continue to trade 1st round picks as long as Snead and McVay is together. Have people forgotten the first trade Snead made as the GM of the Rams was the RGIII trade in which they got a boatload of picks? That was before the draft. Then during the draft they traded down again with the Cowboys who wanted to move up to get Caliborne and the Rams took Brockers. So Snead started off as the Rams GM collecting picks because the roster needed talent in the worst way. Now the team has the roster to contend so Snead feels like if he can go get players to help the team win now he dont mind trading away picks. A rookie selected at 25th overall isnt going to help the Rams go into Lambeau and beat the Packers. A rookie in the late 1st round isnt going to go in Seattle and beat Wilson and the Seahawks. Ramsey will. Stafford I believe will. Thats the mindset Snead and McVay has. 

Especially once picks get into the 20's (but even before), pick values tend to get overvalued.   Everyone remembers the big hits (Donald in the teens!), but they forget how often picks whiff - especially in the 20's or Day 2.     Snead working that angle isn't one that should necessarily be criticized.

Snead's cap management, though, is a different story.   He didn't need to commit to Gurley that soon.   Same with Cooks.  And even Goff, was a year earlier than necessary, given the 5th year option (and a 2nd/3rd year available with the franchise tags).  Those moves are what required him to use more draft capital to upgrade teams, rather than keep the picks and go the FA route, or in this case, not pay more to unload Goff's contract and make the cap work.

I have no problem with Snead's trade philosophy - but it's also made necessary by his bad contracts, and to players he's committed a year earlier than was required.    That's an absolutely fair and spot-on criticism that Snead has rightfully earned.  And why his strategy has to result in a Super Bowl W - it's that or bust at this stage.  I do think he's set the team up well in that regard, but make no mistake - that's the barometer of success or failure.  1 SB win during the entirety of Stafford's run as QB for LAR, and it's all worth it.   No SB's, and the entirety of Snead's era will be seen as close, but no cigar, which is still a whiff.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Broncofan

[Dr LBC]

13 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Actions speak louder than words here, most of us will believe that when we see Detroit commit to Goff as their long-term guy.   Seems far more likely they're going to pump up his value to try and trade him to a QB-desperate team (and the domino where SF doesn't trade away JimmyG without a QB upgrade, does make the market more seller friendly - although eating more cash, waiting for a team to lose their guy and have no alternatives <MIN-Bradford>, or let Goff play and rebuild some value by not struggling as hard as he did in 2019-20, are all ways for that to help facilitate a deal).

I mean, the team that's already in firm SB contention didn't want to keep Goff.  That speaks volumes.

Might be nitpicking here, but (and I think this will be something worth repeating in a number of cases moving forward until the owners/NFLPA do something to redistribute wealth, so to speak, with regard to the massive inflation of QB contracts  relative to scarcity - or lack thereof) the team that's in firm SB contention didn't want Goff on that contract.  (And yes, the argument would then be "Why sign him to it then?" but acknowledgment of the context at the time and the leverage it gave Goff's camp - not dissimilar to the kind of leverage Flacco had when he got the "Thanks, Joe Flacco" fame extension - is necessary to not be shortsighted.)

[Louis Friend]

Just now, CWood21 said:

I mean, be realistic here what exactly do you expect them to say?  Goff is a toxic contract, and we'll give him for a bag of potato chips and slurpee?  No, they're going to talk about how they value him highly.  They're going to try and rehab his value, and then flip him in an offseason or two for a profit.  I get it.  It's smart on Detroit's perspective with almost no downside here.

But Goff really isn't a toxic contract. He's owed $27.8 million this season, can be cut next season for $10 million in cap space or cut after next season with no dead cap hit. Worst case scenario, Lions pay him $27.8 Million this season and saves $10 million next season. Best case scenario, he pans out, gets $25 million per over the next 4 seasons ($27.8, $25.5, $25, $26) for a serviceable QB in his prime. 

[PFM18]

4 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

This is actually fair value.

I said he was not worth the 1st rounders and he's still not IMO.

Getting out from Goff's contract is more value to the Rams so don't think of it as  QB swap.

The Rams bought Stafford AND freedom from the Goff contract.

That cost was the draft picks.

 

I'm not here to pass judgement on Goff but it was clear the Rams were ready to do that.

Lol. I'm not sure how much clearer McVay and Snead could have been about Goff this last week 🙂.

Think they were prepared to say Woolford was going to be the starter soon. 

[Matts4313]

3 minutes ago, Xenos said:

16 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I feel like I've been higher on Stafford than the consensus for years, until apparently today. Now, some are overrating him. He's on the higher end of the averageish tier of QBs. I've also been lower on Goff historically than many, but even then, he's just on the lower end of the averageish tier of QBs. This is an upgrade for the Rams, but I really don't think it's a needle moving kind of upgrade. And the worst part is, he's 33. Or will be in a week, anyway. I get trying to go all-in on a superbowl window, but this is that to a level I can't agree with. You decreased your ability to add future talent, you put a hard end date on your superbowl window (Stafford's age), and again, I don't think the upgrade is that big. Stafford is Matt Ryan, or maybe Philip Rivers at best. He isn't the consistent carry.

This is probably the post that I agree with most. I think Stafford is better than Goff but given what the Rams gave up for him, I don’t think it moves the needle that much either.

The difference is the "Dalton line". 

Stafford is above the Dalton line.

Goff is below the Dalton line.

[Broncofan]

3 minutes ago, Louis Friend said:

But Goff really isn't a toxic contract. He's owed $27.8 million this season, can be cut next season for $10 million in cap space or cut after next season with no dead cap hit. Worst case scenario, Lions pay him $27.8 Million this season and saves $10 million next season. Best case scenario, he pans out, gets $25 million per over the next 4 seasons ($27.8, $25.5, $25, $26) for a serviceable QB in his prime. 

For a team that wants to contend, he doesn't provide enough play above average to justify the number.

For a team that wants to rebuild, his ceiling doesn't justify the $ outlay.

The Rams didn't pay the entire price because Stafford is THAT much better than Goff (and BTW, I think he is that much better - remember, I'd have signed off on Lock + DEN's 1.9).    They signed off to get rid of Goff at that contract, and save the $ (and obv to make the deal work).   Goff's contract and his play at that $ necessitated that LAR pay more.

We can go back & forth - but the proof will be in the actions.   If DET trades him or bails at the first chance when the dead money is negligible, we know they were just paying lip service.    If they truly commit to him and keep him as a foundation guy, sure, they walked the walk.   Time will tell.

Edited January 31, 2021 by Broncofan

[Xenos]

16 hours ago, Superduperman said:

I have to say this: I would not be surprised, in fact I believe it, that the Lions gave Stafford a voice in where he would like - or NOT like - to go. Those who are saying the Washington offer was better, it would not surprise me if the Lions preferred the Rams because Stafford did. Now, I don't think the Lions would have taken a bucket of balls from whoever Stafford wanted, but they didn't, did they.

I think the Lions preferred the Rams because the new GM was from there. Snead and Co probably had a small leg up over other teams. The best situation for Stafford was probably the Colts and their 1st this year, which is better than future picks since it helps Detroit immediately this year. And he goes out of conference. I also wonder if given the Colts salary cap, they could have also eaten more of Stafford’s money for the Lions. But this is all opinions and conjectures on my part at this point.

[CWood21]

Just now, Louis Friend said:

But Goff really isn't a toxic contract. He's owed $27.8 million this season, can be cut next season for $10 million in cap space or cut after next season with no dead cap hit. Worst case scenario, Lions pay him $27.8 Million this season and saves $10 million next season. Best case scenario, he pans out, gets $25 million per over the next 4 seasons ($27.8, $25.5, $25, $26) for a serviceable QB in his prime. 

It was for the Rams.  If they released him, the dead cap was actually higher then his cap hit was set to be.  So it was either him returning as the starting QB for the Rams or trading him.  The only guarantee money that Goff has left is his 2022 roster bonus, and he's got a reasonable cap hit of $25M for 3 more years beyond this upcoming season.  But the problem was that the Rams couldn't afford to dump Goff without a replacement in place.  Their FRP was dealt to the Jaguars for Jalen Ramsey, and future picks aren't going to get them high enough to draft a young QB.  And FA wasn't anymore fruitful.

[Louis Friend]

Just now, CWood21 said:

It was for the Rams.  If they released him, the dead cap was actually higher then his cap hit was set to be.  So it was either him returning as the starting QB for the Rams or trading him.  The only guarantee money that Goff has left is his 2022 roster bonus, and he's got a reasonable cap hit of $25M for 3 more years beyond this upcoming season.  But the problem was that the Rams couldn't afford to dump Goff without a replacement in place.  Their FRP was dealt to the Jaguars for Jalen Ramsey, and future picks aren't going to get them high enough to draft a young QB.  And FA wasn't anymore fruitful.

This I agree with. I just don't understand people claiming the Lions took on some massive contract. It's actually fairly reasonable after the Rams paid almost all of his guaranteed money. I could see the Lions flip him for picks. Especially since he'd not due a massive amount after this trade.