Jump to content

Stafford traded to the Rams for Goff, multiple FRPs


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

What impact has not having 1st round picks the last 4 years had on the Rams success?

*I'll give you a hint, it hasn't ;) 

My only concern is replacing Whitworth at LT, but he seems in it for one more season. We still have a 2nd and two 3rds to draft IOL. Also, Snead has a habit of trading down multiple times in the mid rounds to acquire picks. 

We lose talent every (Fowler, Littleton, Joyner). This year we will lose Floyd and JJIII. Then we get comp picks for losing them. And the great thing about having Aaron Donald  and Jalen Ramsey is that whoever you put around them increases their level of play just by default. Fowler had career year behind Donald, got paid, did $hit. Clay Matthews had 10 sacks in a bounce back year then flop. When you have a core group of guys to build around, it raises the level of play around them and also allows us to build with mid round talent through comp picks. It's worked thus far. 

 

Yes, the more years you don't have a first round pick the harder it is to replace starters and build depth. The salary cap is tough to maneuver when you don't have contributors on rookie deals. I would argue it absolutely has effected the Rams success lol you went from the SB to 9-7 to 10-6. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

Yes, the more years you don't have a first round pick the harder it is to replace starters and build depth. The salary cap is tough to maneuver when you don't have contributors on rookie deals. I would argue it absolutely has effected the Rams success lol you went from the SB to 9-7 to 10-6. 

The salary cap is a figment of your imagination if you're Les Snead lol

4 winning seasons, 3 playoff appearences, 3 playoff wins, and a Superbowl appearence all while have no 1st round picks.

If you have your core group, great coaching staff(we get poached every year now), and a great scouting department, you can be successful with no 1st round picks. 

Sean McVay with no 1st round picks: 43-21 record

Jon Gruden with the most 1st round picks in the last 3 years: 19-29 record

There's no correlation to having more 1st round picks= more wins

Edited by BStanRamFan
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

The salary cap is a figment of your imagination if you're Les Snead lol

4 winning seasons, 3 playoff appearences, 3 playoff wins, and a Superbowl appearence all while have no 1st round picks.

If you have your core group, great coaching staff(we get poached every year now), and a great scouting department, you can be successful with no 1st round picks. 

Sean McVay with no 1st round picks: 43-21 record

Jon Gruden with the most 1st round picks in the last 3 years: 19-29 record

There's no correlation to having more 1st round picks= more wins

I mean comparing the poorly run Raiders to the Rams doesn't really prove what you think it does. The Rams have declined since the SB run, thats not really debatable. No one considered them a contender this year, and rightfully so. You don't think a lack of first round picks might be contributing to that? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MookieMonstah said:

I mean comparing the poorly run Raiders to the Rams doesn't really prove what you think it does. The Rams have declined since the SB run, thats not really debatable. No one considered them a contender this year, and rightfully so. You don't think a lack of first round picks might be contributing to that? 

Jared Goff has declined since the superbowl run. We just replaced him.

The defense became #1 one in the league last year and greatly improved since our Superbowl run.

It is actually easily debatable. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kirill said:

The Rams also traded two 2nd rounders to rent out Marcus Peters and Sammy Watkins for a season each.

We traded a first for Sammy and netted a 3rd round compensatory pick for Watkins.

We traded a first for Peters, but had to move him to make room for Ramsey and in return we got Kenny Young and a 6th round pick. <-- that one sucked, but was necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MookieMonstah said:

I mean comparing the poorly run Raiders to the Rams doesn't really prove what you think it does. The Rams have declined since the SB run, thats not really debatable. No one considered them a contender this year, and rightfully so. You don't think a lack of first round picks might be contributing to that? 

 

31 minutes ago, BStanRamFan said:

Jared Goff has declined since the superbowl run. We just replaced him.

The defense became #1 one in the league last year and greatly improved since our Superbowl run.

It is actually easily debatable. 

As always, there's seldom a completely right or wrong answer in these kind of debates.

If you want to build a contender, the easiest way is through the draft - because of the cap considerations with the savings of a rookie deal.     And the fact you need to build a 53-man roster (or in this year, 90).  And first round picks allows teams to pick from the top tier, so sure, they're incredibly valuable. But it's not the only way.   If you can hit on the midtier FA market, or you can hit on Day 2-3/UFA, there's an alternate path.

The other part - not all first rounders are created equal.  A top 12 pick has a MUCH higher chance of not missing than a pick in the 25 range.  Frankly, it's why I would have taken CAR's offer in a vacuum if I'm DET, but that's another discussion.   Also, in some years, the draft class is not nearly so impressive, so the draft value of the same first-rounder isn't as high. A 2011 top 15 pick and a 2013 top 15 pick look VERY different.  That could be why DET passed on this year's first rounder for CAR over the 2 future 1st's LAR offered.  But there's risk either way.  Again, though, another topic.   

The reason why rebuilders love first-round picks - they're not trying to win present-year.   So they're all about value. And their picks are usually in the higher-certainty range.   It's also why sometimes rebuilders gamble with future years - hoping they get HOU to finish bottom 5 TWICE like they have in past trades with future 1sts - and then it's a gold-mine return.  But the flip side is finishing into the 25-28 range - makes it far, far less valuable than the label gets perception-wise.

I think it's VERY fair to say that for teams to remain in sustained contention, draft success is how you stay there.   Sooner or later, you have to pay the piper for your draft / bargain FA hits.  But it doesn't mean it's the only way, either.   Eventually, though, once you go the route Snead has undertaken, there's a butcher's bill that's due.   Sometimes it happens all at once, and there's a 2-3 year complete rebuild that's necessary.  Sometime's it's just that you're hamstrung enough you can't get the final 1-2 pieces left to get over the top.  

There isn't one way to build a winner.   The draft is certainly the easiest - but it's not without pitfalls, and for contenders, first-round picks aren't as valuable as rebuilders'.   

Edited by Broncofan
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kramxel said:

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

 

Here’s more context from Peter King. Looks like Stafford really wanted to play for the Rams, and the Lions liked Goff enough to think he can rehabilitated to be more than a bridge QB.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/01/31/chiefs-bucs-super-bowl-rams-lions-trade-fmia-peter-king/
 

Quote

The forces that made it happen, why the Rams were the perfect partners for the deal, and why it made too much sense to not happen:

• The Lions wanted to do right by Stafford, and Stafford’s preferred team was the Rams. The Lions didn’t want another disaffected star (Calvin Johnson) leaving the organization all ticked off. Ownership and the front office were determined to try their best to accommodate Stafford and send him to a team where he’d have a good chance to win. The Rams were number one. The Colts would have been an amenable option. The Niners too. Though the Stafford family has a home in Newport Beach, 42 miles south of SoFi Stadium, this was not about being in a comfortable and familiar place. It was about a 33-year-old quarterback (as of next Sunday) knowing his career has an expiration date and knowing he’d never been on a division winner or won a playoff game in his 12 NFL seasons. It was about wanting to have a chance to play meaningful January games.

• Money didn’t matter to Stafford. He told the Rams they didn’t have to re-do his deal. For Stafford, this was not about money—he made $219 million during his Detroit years—but rather about football, exclusively. He’ll happily play this year at $20 million, and we’ll see if the Rams, or he, will want to extend his contract after the last season on his deal, 2022, when he’s due to make $23 million.

• Goff must have very mixed feelings. It was clear the Rams had lost faith in him (“Jared Goff is a Ram at this second,” GM Les Snead said a week ago), so Goff gets to go to another team in a starting role that will pay him like a franchise quarterback—$28.15 million, $26.15 million, $25.65 million over the next three years. The Lions just gave new coach Dan Campbell a six-year contract, a sign they know they’re starting from scratch. It’s a long way from the second round of the playoffs to a total rebuild for Goff. And for this California kid, it’s 2,314 miles from L.A. to Ford Field. It might seem longer when that Michigan weather hits after Thanksgiving. To his credit, Goff went out classy, telling NFL Media’s Mike Silver on Sunday he’s excited by the new start in Detroit.

• The contenders. Indianapolis was interested. I am sure owner Jim Irsay wanted Stafford to follow in the recent footsteps of Manning, Luck and Rivers. But I also knew when the price got past the Colts’ first-round pick (21st pick overall) in 2021, that was going to be tough for GM Chris Ballard, who’d already lost the youth and cost-control of a first-round rookie last year when the team traded for DeForest Buckner. Maybe the Colts would have done a first and a third, for example, but not two first-rounders.

I hear San Francisco and Washington were in it. I hear Carolina and Denver were aggressively into it, and if Detroit liked its incumbent QBs more than Goff, maybe one of those deals would have been close. Carolina could have offered the eighth overall pick this year plus Teddy Bridgewater, and Denver could have offered the ninth overall pick plus Drew Lock. (I don’t know if either of those offers were firmly made, but those teams had to have known Detroit wanted a starting quarterback in return.) Stafford was far more keen on the Rams than the Panthers or Broncos.

• What the Lions thought. New coach Dan Campbell and new GM Brad Holmes had this in common: They both wanted Goff, and not just as a bridge quarterback. As director of college scouting for the Rams when Goff was picked in 2016, Holmes favored him inside the Rams draft room—and still does, I’m told. Campbell, I’m also told, liked Goff not just as a bridge quarterback but as the Lions quarterback of the future.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MookieMonstah said:

Yes, the more years you don't have a first round pick the harder it is to replace starters and build depth. The salary cap is tough to maneuver when you don't have contributors on rookie deals. I would argue it absolutely has effected the Rams success lol you went from the SB to 9-7 to 10-6. 

 

The Rams drafted in the first round in 2016.

2017 draft - no first round pick - 11-5

2018 draft - no first round pick - 13-3

2019 draft - no first round pick - 9-7

2020 draft - no first round pick - 10-6

 

If you're going to say that not having first round picks hurt the Rams, guess you have to say it helped too. We ascended with no first, ascended with no first, descended with no first, ascended with no first.

As usual, people are overvaluing first round picks. The Rams starters for their Super Bowl team consisted of:

QB - first round pick

RB - first round pick

WR - FA, 3rd round pick, traded for first

TE - 4th and 2nd round picks

OL - FA, 2nd round pick, FA, FA, 2nd round pick

DL - first round pick, FA, first round pick

ILB - UDFA, traded for 5th round pick

EDGE - 3rd round pick, traded for a 3rd round pick

CB - traded for 2nd round pick, traded for 5th round pick, FA

S - 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick

 

So this shows two things:

First, we're acquiring good players for these first round picks - so it's not like they're being wasted

Second, we've done EXTREMELY well at developing players internally that were not first round picks - the Rams have a great pipeline of young talent and it keeps going with the comp picks we have coming back. This year we'll have three picks in the first three rounds, even after having used some picks in this draft to acquire both Ramsey and Stafford. It'll be the same next year too given that we'll likely get 2-3 3rd round comp picks if our FAs leave this year.

 

It's actually easier to find starters if you trade those first round picks for proven players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Broncofan said:

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.

 

I have to think about it. You guys may be right, but not in the sense that Stafford actually worried
about Patricia actually running his football life. I just think that maybe, Stafford wanted to give 
Patricia a shot. And he did. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Y’all love draft picks. They aren’t as as valuable as people think, well at least  Look at the Rams team they got players basically in their primes or towards the end of the their prime, it’s only smart to maximise that it right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

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

Playing Green Bay and Minnesota twice per year hasn't been good for Stafford. Those are the big games he needed to win and rarely accomplished.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, babababa said:

Playing Green Bay and Minnesota twice per year hasn't been good for Stafford. Those are the big games he needed to win and rarely accomplished.

Week 17 games against the Packers for a 6 win Lions' team is considered a "big game"?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting about what the Rams gave up. Jimmy Johnson, who made up the draft trade value chart, said the Rams essentially just gave up a decent 2nd, and two 3rd’s, plus got rid of a bad contract. So everyone who is strictly looking at the Rams giving up  two 1st round picks on the surface don’t understand the true value of those picks if Stafford comes in and do what the organization expects and that’s to win and make deep playoff runs potentially getting to and winning a Superbowl. 

It’s like with the Ramsey trade, the Rams essentially gave up the 20th and 25th picks for Ramsey. The Jags took EDGE Chaisson and is mocked to take CB Horn in this years draft. Now ask yourself, would you rather have those two players or Ramsey? The Raiders was smart not to trade Mack to the Rams because they knew they would be getting terrible 1st round picks. The only reason the Lions traded Stafford to the Rams instead of getting a top 10 pick which was offered by the Panthers because the GM Holmes loved Goff but most importantly they wanted to do right by Stafford and he wanted to play for McVay in LA. Otherwise the picks the Rams gave up means nothing in true value if we think they are going to have extreme success these next two years.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

Interesting about what the Rams gave up. Jimmy Johnson, who made up the draft trade value chart, said the Rams essentially just gave up a decent 2nd, and two 3rd’s, plus got rid of a bad contract. So everyone who is strictly looking at the Rams giving up  two 1st round picks on the surface don’t understand the true value of those picks if Stafford comes in and do what the organization expects and that’s to win and make deep playoff runs potentially getting to and winning a Superbowl. 

It’s like with the Ramsey trade, the Rams essentially gave up the 20th and 25th picks for Ramsey. The Jags took EDGE Chaisson and is mocked to take CB Horn in this years draft. Now ask yourself, would you rather have those two players or Ramsey? The Raiders was smart not to trade Mack to the Rams because they knew they would be getting terrible 1st round picks. The only reason the Lions traded Stafford to the Rams instead of getting a top 10 pick which was offered by the Panthers because the GM Holmes loved Goff but most importantly they wanted to do right by Stafford and he wanted to play for McVay in LA. Otherwise the picks the Rams gave up means nothing in true value if we think they are going to have extreme success these next two years.

 

Again, that's the value from a team looking to win now.

The value for a rebuilder is what that pick ends up as, and then the pool they draft from.   Why the Tunsil trade is a huge W for MIA - they got 1.3 and 1.26 (then moved down to Igbonehene).  1.3 is such a huge best-case scenario - doubtful with LAR 2021, but point being where they end up matters more to the rebuilder.   The Igbonehene pick also shows the pitfalls in thinking all 1st rounders are the same - it's too early to write that pick off, but the whiff rates are much higher there.

The fact contenders devalue future 1sts, and rebuilders value them so much, explains why we get so many matches for deals like these.  It can even explain why they passed on CAR's 1.9 offer - they may not have wanted this year's top 10 class, and were willing to pass on this year, for the lure of 2022-23 (where there's much less uncertainty in a non-Covid season in draft evaluation).   Still a risk, but the reasoning is there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...