Stafford traded to the Rams for Goff, multiple FRPs

[FrantikRam]

12 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

Stafford doesn't have a long history of playing in big games. (That whole "terrible organization" thing.)

 

And while I'm not a huge fan of 4th quarter comeback and GWD stats for QBs, I think they're a little more apt for Stafford because, Lions, and he's been pretty good in the clutch.

[BigTrav]

19 minutes ago, DerbyRam said:

I've been torn over this trade, ultimately the Lions won it but I'm not sure by how much.

It's crazy how low people are on Goff - a 26 year old QB who has been to the Super Bowl and the pro bowl in 50% of his seasons as a starter. The crazy part is that he's played less than half the seasons Stafford has, but has been to the Pro Bowl more often in the same conference. He's also never had a losing season, which is often overlooked and almost dismissed. I have no idea why. I think McVay lost his head with this trade. If Goff was so bad then we would be a losing football team and the draft picks become more valuable. 

 

Context though. Lions lose mostly due to inept coaching, defense, lack of talent etc all the standard reasons. When LAR, a superior team, lose it's usually because Goff has completely sh the bed. Stafford has had unstable coaching all his career, Goff has had the QB whisperer (quite literally whispering plays to him). Goff's nosedive from a top 10ish QB to someone they couldn't wait to get rid of has to be considered too.

Look how eager McVay must have been to can him. Despite all the protection he gave him, making things as easy as possible, giving him open first reads, having the 2nd most play-action in the league and all that - deep down he must have hated having Goff this season. 

Actions speak louder than words in press conferences.

[Broncofan]

8 hours ago, Split the Sticks said:

Broncofan, and @NYRaider30, 

Do you guys realize that Patricia not be coaching and will be special consultant/assistant coach on defense????

BOINK! Get woke, dudes.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2018/04/09/lions-quinn-patricia-were-lockstep/33692005/

Every personnel decision made Patricia was "in lockstep" with Quinn.    Your boink sounds like you hit the hit the goalposts.    But hey, whatever you want to believe in being on Patricia not earning Stafford's disdain - the above, and more importantly, Patricia's tenure speak to themselves as to why Stafford would avoid NE.   

It's a bold position to take given Patricia's body of work and direct say in personnel decisions, but we don't have to agree, you do you.     Moving on.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Broncofan

[kramxel]

8 hours ago, Forge said:

 

Panthers' might be a better offer than the Rams'.... 

 

[kramxel]

10 minutes ago, BigTrav said:

Context though. Lions lose mostly due to inept coaching, defense, lack of talent etc all the standard reasons. When LAR, a superior team, lose it's usually because Goff has completely sh the bed. Stafford has had unstable coaching all his career, Goff has had the QB whisperer (quite literally whispering plays to him). Goff's nosedive from a top 10ish QB to someone they couldn't wait to get rid of has to be considered too.

Look how eager McVay must have been to can him. Despite all the protection he gave him, making things as easy as possible, giving him open first reads, having the 2nd most play-action in the league and all that - deep down he must have hated having Goff this season. 

Actions speak louder than words in press conferences.

While I do agree that Goff was a limiting factor, most of the  times Rams have lost in the playoffs, the general consensus has been they have been out-coached. 

Granted that bringing Stafford will open the playbook, but in all honesty the whole team was always built around scripted plays and ball control, and it wasn't just because of Goff. 

Trying to reduce all of the Rams problems to Jared Goff is simplistic and naive. 

 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

4 minutes ago, kramxel said:

Panthers' might be a better offer than the Rams'.... 

 

To some, but I'd take the two future 1sts and a current 3rd over that deal each time.

[BStanRamFan]

4 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

To some, but I'd take the two future 1sts and a current 3rd over that deal each time.

Would anyone accept two bottom 5 1st round picks to move up to number 8? Serious question. I actually dont think so, but that's how it has to be viewed. 

[Broncofan]

8 hours ago, Forge said:

 

 

9 minutes ago, kramxel said:

Panthers' might be a better offer than the Rams'.... 

 

Panther's offer is for sure better than the Rams' if a team is looking to rebuild and get better immediately.   If the Rams finish in the final 4, those are 2 picks in the 29-32 range.    If they just make it to Divisional round, it's a pick in the 25-32 range.   2 of those aren't worth a 1.8 pick.

However, the 3 possibilities I see:  

1.   DET isn't interested in either Fields or Wilson, and they're not interested in the top 10 Big Board.    That would devalue getting a top 10 pick (1.7 and 1.8 would put them in the driver's seat to move up and get Wilson or Fields).

2.  Stafford may not have put CAR on a no-trade list officially, but it was far, far down his preference list, and DET's commitment to him made them consider LAR's instead.

3.  Breer is off on his story details - maybe CAR wanted DET's 2nd back, which knocks the value way down.

 

[Broncofan]

25 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

Would anyone accept two bottom 5 1st round picks to move up to number 8? Serious question. I actually dont think so, but that's how it has to be viewed. 

Generally, teams that want to do that are targeting 1 specific guy.   DET might not have 1 specific guy in mind.

Having said that, generally it requires more.    KC did only need 28, a future 1st & 3.28 to move up to #10.  HOU only needed a future 1st to move up to #12.    But to get all the way to 8, if there's a really specific target, it's generally believed to cost more - especially given the results with those move-ups (and add Josh Allen to the mix).    If it's not a QB you're moving up for, though, it might only cost that (or even a little less, if there are no other bidders and a team really wants to move back).

Which brings me to my earlier point - DET might not have been interested if they really aren't enamored with Fields or Wilson, or Lance (the #2 - #4 guys).   Of course, ppl will say "they took Goff, they must not be high on QB" - but that also assumes they aren't looking to simply move him once he rebuilds value, or there's a team desperately needing QB who are willing to pay more than teams were at this time.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Broncofan

[BStanRamFan]

1 minute ago, Broncofan said:

Generally, teams that want to do that are targeting 1 specific guy.   DET might not have 1 specific guy in mind.

Having said that, generally it requires more.    KC did only need 28, a future 1st & 3.28 to move up to #10.  HOU only needed a future 1st to move up to #12.    But to get all the way to 8, if there's a really specific target, it's generally believed to cost more - especially given the results with those move-ups (and add Josh Allen to the mix).    If it's not a QB you're moving up for, though, it might only cost that.

Which brings me to my earlier point - DET might not have been interested if they really aren't enamored with Fields or Wilson, or Lance (the #2 - #4 guys).   Of course, ppl will say "they took Goff, they must not be high on QB" - but that also assumes they aren't looking to simply move him once he rebuilds value, or there's a team desperately needing QB who are willing to pay more than teams were at this time.

That would make sense to me. They are calling this is a long term rebuild. So you draft Fields or Lance, have them sit for 2 seasons behind Goff and then you can cut Goff loose afte 2023 with little to no cap ramifications. Or just trade out of the the pick and accumulate more 1sts if that's your angle.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

11 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

Would anyone accept two bottom 5 1st round picks to move up to number 8? Serious question. I actually dont think so, but that's how it has to be viewed. 

And a late 3rd? Possibly. The TVC numbers are there. (1,400 is really close to 620 + 620 + 120.)

But that's not necessarily how it has to be viewed (at least, the only way). The Lions are rebuilding. They have the #7 pick. They need to build a roster, and they brought Holmes from LA to DET because of his "ability to find talent in the draft".

[max]

10 hours ago, jrry32 said:

I directly answered your question. And I asked a question of my own to demonstrate that when you compare supporting casts, they were at worst equals. My point is that Stafford doesn't have a long history of delivering in big games. So the claims that he would have made the difference in the LAR-GB playoff game this year are dubious at best.

While I agree it’s doubtful Stafford would have made the difference in GB, I believe he most certainly would have made the difference in Miami and against the Jets and even the Niners. The point here is if the Rams win 3 of those 4 games, they aren’t playing in GB, they are playing at home. And I like our chances a hell of a lot more with Stafford at home against the Packers, than with Goff in GB. And maybe Rams would of had the bye, and Donald is healthy at home against GB. I think those bad losses to weak teams had a lot to do with McVay wanting the move. 

[BStanRamFan]

Just now, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

And a late 3rd? Possibly. The TVC numbers are there. (1,400 is really close to 620 + 620 + 120.)

But that's not necessarily how it has to be viewed (at least, the only way). The Lions are rebuilding. They have the #7 pick. They need to build a roster, and they brought Holmes from LA to DET because of his "ability to find talent in the draft".

He's going to be great for you guys. I'm excited he got that role. The reason we've been able to have the success we've had agressively trading 1sts and accumulating compensatory picks is because of his ability to find mid round talent and convert them into starters. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

7 minutes ago, Broncofan said:

Generally, teams that want to do that are targeting 1 specific guy.   DET might not have 1 specific guy in mind.

Having said that, generally it requires more.    KC did only need 28, a future 1st & 3.28 to move up to #10.  HOU only needed a future 1st to move up to #12.    But to get all the way to 8, if there's a really specific target, it's generally believed to cost more - especially given the results with those move-ups (and add Josh Allen to the mix).    If it's not a QB you're moving up for, though, it might only cost that.

Which brings me to my earlier point - DET might not have been interested if they really aren't enamored with Fields or Wilson, or Lance (the #2 - #4 guys).   Of course, ppl will say "they took Goff, they must not be high on QB" - but that also assumes they aren't looking to simply move him once he rebuilds value, or there's a team desperately needing QB who are willing to pay more than teams were at this time.

Good post.

The Lions have #7 this year. Perhaps the additional ammo allows them to move higher and grab a "franchise QB", or perhaps they'll think they can develop a QB at #7 behind Goff for two years.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 minute ago, BStanRamFan said:

He's going to be great for you guys. I'm excited he got that role. The reason we've been able to have the success we've had agressively trading 1sts and accumulating compensatory picks is because of his ability to find mid round talent and convert them into starters. 

Really hoping so. We have a long history of missed picks. (Hence, our struggles. I guess that's all kinda obvious.)