Rams trade 2 future first rounders, a third rounder, and Jared Goff for Matthew Stafford

[NVRamsFan]

10 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

I know but Jimmy was saying the true value of those picks since it’s future and not current. If those two 1st round picks end up very late 1st round picks then it will be worth it because that means Stafford for the Rams deep into the playoffs if not to the Superbowl and we no longer have to deal with Goff big contract moving forward. There is nobody that can be had deep into the 1st round blue chip talent that could’ve come in year one and help lead the Rams to  a deep run or to a Superbowl but Stafford certainly can. Same applies with Ramsey. Nobody that could’ve been had at 20th or this year at 25th that could’ve came in and help lead the defense to 1st overall and shut down Metcalf, Hopkins, Diggs, Cooper, and other top notch receivers. That’s what the Rams are thinking. 

Irrelevant, when the Lions use those future picks they’re in our slot in the first round. They don’t change rounds they’re first round picks. Saying otherwise is just trying to make it more palatable.

[StLunatic88]

17 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. 

As jrry pointed out, those are real life first round picks we gave up. Your beliefs on how valuable those picks are is really the only discussion we can have. 

Jimmy Johnson’s chart is just a short hand when comparing trade offers of different picks. It’s also a subjective tool that can’t account for everything. Things like what a teams current plan is, for the depth of talent in the draft, and of course it absolutely can not account for the COVID impacts on the draft process (players opting out, limited travel to scout, no combine, etc). So as has been pointed out by many, especially every time WAS or CAR complain their offer was “better” the Lions very well may see this as a draft they don’t see as much value in, and having future firsts make them feel more comfortable. 

Not to mention, while everyone keeps saying that those picks are “going to be late 20s at best for the Lions” is just not true and rationalization at its finest. The fact is, those picks are at worst the 32nd pick in both drafts, and at best the #1 overall pick. Now one is more likely than the other based upon our team makeup, but those are the only facts about those traded picks. Everything else is subjective. 

It’s foolish to ignore that we could be handing over a premium pick, we literally just watched it happened with Houston. Now if you don’t think it will happen, or don’t care that it could, that’s fine, but to ignore the possibility is just sticking your head in the sand. Because the Texans just did it, and while their FO is a mess, and they have a bad defense, they still had a Top 5 QB during a career year, and a Top 10 LT (I think better than that). So what is to say Kupp is hurt off and on again all year, that out 40 year old LT just finally completely breaks down and the big kicker, what if Donald has a season ending injury in like week 2, and the defense that is all based off of him being double and tripled teamed just collapses. Those aren’t far fetched thoughts, and while it wouldn’t likely be a Top 3 pick. It could easily be Top 10-12.

We could make the playoffs and be one and done, and it would at worst be #22 for the Lions. Even if we have the best record in the league, and we get upset in our fist game it’s pick #26. And with the way QBs are treated plus dumb drafting we see all the time that could still be a Top 20 talent.

Im not even arguing if the trade was worth it or not, but just pointing out how ridiculous it is that so many are just hand waving it away like it’s absolutely nothing.  

[Dr LBC]

20 hours ago, El Ramster said:

I think he he’s headed to Oakland tbh. 

To play for a street league team?  Or to clean the BART?

There's no pro football team in Oakland anymore, Rammy.

[btfd16]

Niners rumblings with Kirk... 

Russ

Kyler

Stafford

Kirk

sheesh.

[Dr LBC]

3 hours ago, StLunatic88 said:

I’d also caution anyone just assuming Stafford is signing some extension right away. He’s not going to do us any favors, especially if he still plays well, he’s got atleast on me more big contract to cash in. 

He may possibly restructure, and save about $5m on 2021, but I wouldn’t expect much more. 

To be honest, I'm expecting, at most, 1 additional year added on to his current contract just to allow for flexibility in moving monies around - and they could even given him a player option to exercise for that year (though I'm not sure how the cap mechanics work out for trying to post-date prorations of bonus monies into optional years).

Like I said earlier, at this point I've accepted that this FO is going to go against the grain and convention - that doesn't necessarily mean bad things, it just means uncertainty comes part and parcel with the experience and it's forgivable as long as there are more hits than misses.  I also, genuinely, think that Stafford is being looked at as a short-to-medium-term rental while McVay and Snead work out and execute the gameplay to get McVay his golden child.  Now that last bit could definitely be conjecture and the new twist in the way that Les has tried to define/embrace unconventional paradigms, as he has before to a good deal of success, is to embrace that there is less scarcity for starting quality QB's in the league than we've seen in some time, so banking on the lure of the LA market, a (what they believe to be) proven offensive system, and having two of the best defenders in the league on the other unit in their back-pocket could be a shiny enough situation to regularly entice aging veteran QB's on the tail of their primes to sign on here for one last run at a ring.

I'm less inclined to buy into the later scenario because, unless they were slow to learn (which is possible), I don't feel like they'd have given Goff the extension they did that was the eventual intent.  Other factors definitely could have contributed: The timing of the lack of scarcity acceleration was a bit slow behind the Goff extension, they had yet to open SoFi (and were still trying to sell PSA's and ST's)  and not extending - or trading away - your young "franchise" QB who you traded up to acquire doesn't offer good optics to that endeavor.

[StLunatic88]

2 minutes ago, The LBC said:

To be honest, I'm expecting, at most, 1 additional year added on to his current contract just to allow for flexibility in moving monies around - and they could even given him a player option to exercise for that year (though I'm not sure how the cap mechanics work out for trying to post-date prorations of bonus monies into optional years).

That very well may happen, but I see a lot of people assuming he’s just going to have a new 5 year deal to help elevate the cap, but the thing there is, that comes with a new Signing Bonus, and guaranteed money, not all that will be deferred till later. 

As far as a player option and Bonus money, I think it would work similar to how Floyd’s money worked this year. It’s a new trick they are trying, but I’m not sure of the constraints on it yet.

5 minutes ago, The LBC said:

I also, genuinely, think that Stafford is being looked at as a short-to-medium-term rental while McVay and Snead work out and execute the gameplay to get McVay his golden child

I don’t think that’s a crazy thought, but trading away more and more premium draft assets make it difficult to see that path 

[stl4life07]

28 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

As jrry pointed out, those are real life first round picks we gave up. Your beliefs on how valuable those picks are is really the only discussion we can have. 

Jimmy Johnson’s chart is just a short hand when comparing trade offers of different picks. It’s also a subjective tool that can’t account for everything. Things like what a teams current plan is, for the depth of talent in the draft, and of course it absolutely can not account for the COVID impacts on the draft process (players opting out, limited travel to scout, no combine, etc). So as has been pointed out by many, especially every time WAS or CAR complain their offer was “better” the Lions very well may see this as a draft they don’t see as much value in, and having future firsts make them feel more comfortable. 

Not to mention, while everyone keeps saying that those picks are “going to be late 20s at best for the Lions” is just not true and rationalization at its finest. The fact is, those picks are at worst the 32nd pick in both drafts, and at best the #1 overall pick. Now one is more likely than the other based upon our team makeup, but those are the only facts about those traded picks. Everything else is subjective. 

It’s foolish to ignore that we could be handing over a premium pick, we literally just watched it happened with Houston. Now if you don’t think it will happen, or don’t care that it could, that’s fine, but to ignore the possibility is just sticking your head in the sand. Because the Texans just did it, and while their FO is a mess, and they have a bad defense, they still had a Top 5 QB during a career year, and a Top 10 LT (I think better than that). So what is to say Kupp is hurt off and on again all year, that out 40 year old LT just finally completely breaks down and the big kicker, what if Donald has a season ending injury in like week 2, and the defense that is all based off of him being double and tripled teamed just collapses. Those aren’t far fetched thoughts, and while it wouldn’t likely be a Top 3 pick. It could easily be Top 10-12.

We could make the playoffs and be one and done, and it would at worst be #22 for the Lions. Even if we have the best record in the league, and we get upset in our fist game it’s pick #26. And with the way QBs are treated plus dumb drafting we see all the time that could still be a Top 20 talent.

Im not even arguing if the trade was worth it or not, but just pointing out how ridiculous it is that so many are just hand waving it away like it’s absolutely nothing.  

I get everything you are saying I truly do. Point number one is you mention the Texans. We have to understand how bad the Texans organization is. When we think about teams trading 1st round picks that end up being top 10 picks mostly they are associated with bad organizations. The Rams traded with Washington for the RG3 trade. They ended up with the 2nd overall pick. Why? Because Washington is a terrible organization. You have to think about a great organization and what is their worst season look like? The Saints under Payton and Brees. They was together for 15yrs. They dealt with injuries, suspensions, an historically bad defense for a season, and other seasons just very bad defense. They endured all of that at one point and time throughout 15yrs together. The team worst season was (7-9). They didnt allow a season to derail them to the point where they were one of the worst teams in the NFL in terms of record. We think of the Steelers another well run organization. You have to go back to 2003 to find their worst record at (6-10). Outside of that they have been at least (8-8) or better. 

So if you truly think the Rams have the organization that is great and you think McVay is great too just like we feel Payton is of the Saints and then Cowher was followed by Tomlin of the Steelers then the Rams team wont end up being derailed to the point where they are like (4-12) in a season. Especially not these next two years when the roster is going to compete. The Rams dealt with injuries this year and still won 10 games plus a playoff win.

 

As for the value of picks, I think the norm should be not to get so caught up with 1st round picks. Yes they are have value but they arent the end all be all. The Rams have shown they can draft extremely well in the other rounds. We look at a team like the Jets who have gotten it right in the 1st round round but horribly failed after that in the other rounds. The Seahawks built a mini dynasty in which Wilson has yet to have a losing season. They didnt hit on 1st round picks but they hit on the rest of the draft. So again the norm shouldnt be placed on 1st round picks. I hear all these people talking as if by the Rams trading away 1st round picks they dont have 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, or can get undrafted rookies. The Steelers for example make a living drafting great receivers 3rd round or later. Do anyone knock them for not taking a receiver ever in the 1st round? Nope. So its like there is so many ways to make the team better than just having 1st round picks. Historically I get that 1st round picks are extremely important. You hit on those players the most but as we are starting to see in the league alot of the league is made up of guys drafted later in the draft and Im sure we can talk about how many 1st round picks that either have bust, out of the league, or vastly not have lived up to their draft pick. The way the Rams are doing things no team has ever done before so of course there is push back and some dont even know what to think about it. All McVay and Snead is saying is a Superbowl appearance, two division titles, and no losing season. So far so good and honestly things can fall apart quickly even if you have everything perfectly situated. Just ask the Colts with Luck and tons of draft capital. All of a sudden Luck retires, you get Rivers then he retires and now the Colts are stuck looking for a QB. So McVay and Snead is thinking why think about 2 or 3 three years down the road when right now we have what it takes to make a run so lets do it.  

[El Ramster]

Stafford said he doesn’t care about the money. Said he made enough in Det. And doesn’t want/need an extension. With that being said here comes Snead 4/200 million with 165 guaranteed. 

[btfd16]

2 minutes ago, El Ramster said:

Stafford said he doesn’t care about the money. Said he made enough in Det. And doesn’t want/need an extension. With that being said here comes Snead 4/200 million with 165 guaranteed. 

I was talking myself into Matt Stafford going full Tommy B this morning.

[NVRamsFan]

Some people who pushed for a change at QB are walking back expectations but the coach has set the bar. Nothing else is acceptable for 2021. 

 

[StLunatic88]

28 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

Point number one is you mention the Texans. We have to understand how bad the Texans organization is. When we think about teams trading 1st round picks that end up being top 10 picks mostly they are associated with bad organizations.

My point is you I cant pretend it isn’t a possibility. No one saw this happening to Houston, no matter how bad of an Organization they might be. And while things have turned around in the past 4 years, we aren’t some power house organization, I think we still own the record for least wins in a 5 year span. And if this approach doesn’t work out, we could be looking at a rough go for a little while. We aren’t the Saints, we aren’t the Patriots, and we definitely aren’t the Steelers. Maybe we will be at some point, but a few year stretch does not make a great organization. 

The Texans are just the most shocking example because they traded that pick, but look at the rest of the league. Doubt most had the Falcons picking #4, maybe missing playoffs but not in the cellar. What about the Eagles all the way at #6? Or what happened to the NFC East as a whole? Not good enough? Look at the Niners at #12 who went 6-10, who beat us twice, who with a few bounces are easily a 9-7 team or even better even with all those injuries. Same with Minnesota picking at 14. Yes, those picks we traded away should be in the 24-32 range, but its no where close to a guarantee.

[Dr LBC]

14 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

That very well may happen, but I see a lot of people assuming he’s just going to have a new 5 year deal to help elevate the cap, but the thing there is, that comes with a new Signing Bonus, and guaranteed money, not all that will be deferred till later. 

As far as a player option and Bonus money, I think it would work similar to how Floyd’s money worked this year. It’s a new trick they are trying, but I’m not sure of the constraints on it yet.

I don’t think that’s a crazy thought, but trading away more and more premium draft assets make it difficult to see that path 

I think a 5-year deal is almost definitely NOT happening.  I think the unloading of Goff was about gaining future cap flexibility.

I can see multiple paths, both of which center around the same basic motif: McVay wants/plans to develop a QB within his system.  One common theme I believe I've seen in these different paradigms that Snead enacts, and part and parcel to why they tend to work, is that they go against commonly-accepted trends (because the league is so reactionary, trends tend to get treated as "the way" or "the most logical" way too quickly).  This is something Broncosfan and I have discussed at length.  I tend to believe that Les is looking at what the paradigms of the past which have shown to have success before they became oversaturated in terms of use and trying to formulate which ones can be recycled back into use - the trick will obviously be recognizing and knowing when to pull the ripcord on it and bail before it hits the oversaturation point, and thus moving on to another or new set of paradigms.  It's a very Belichickean approach - so I suppose it depends on how much influence you figure that Thomas Dmitroff had on Snead versus, say, Rich McKay and Dan Reeves - though it was Dmitroff who elevated Snead to more of a position of power beyond just Scout.

Among those two paths, I think there's the (I may consider it less-likely because it's probably the more-expected, if traditionally less-successful, though I won't deny that bucking that trend very likely has an appeal to McVay's ego) drafting a mid-round, toolsy QB prospect to develop behind Stafford - who has given me no reason to believe he wouldn't be a willing mentor, particularly if he does see his situation as being still with one last big contract left in him.  The other avenue is that just because we don't have 1st round picks in 2022 or 2023 doesn't mean we're incapable of trading back into the 1st round if the right prospect falls - a la a Deshaun Watson or Patrick Mahomes... or scenario-wise, Aaron Rodgers.  And this is where I draw the Alex Smith in KC parallel.  No one really considered KC to be a threat to draft Mahomes, much less trade up for him... because they had Alex Smith on the roster who had been quite serviceable.

Contrary to popular belief, so far as I know, GM's don't share who they're moving up for with each other when they're talking trades; at best, it's a confirmation (and even then that's not commonplace) that they're not moving up for the guy that the trading-back-GM would be targeting with the later pick.  I don't think this is necessarily a pie-in-the-sky outcome, but I also recognize it's nowhere near high-probability.  But if the long-term (say end-product of the opening day roster on 2023 or 2024) is us trotting out a Mahomes or Watson or even Russell Wilson caliber QB, I don't think anyone is looking back at this past weekend's trade as a gross negative.

And just looking at the way that college football and the prospects that it's putting out on a regular (at least every-other-year) basis, there are at least one of these high-ceiling, concerns-about-floor because of rawness QB's in almost every class.  And I'm not talking the John Skelton's and Virginia Tech QB's of the past, but rather,  look to this year (I'm not saying I think we're going to pursue him, but just that he may well be the type we might target in the future to train up/mold) at Trey Lance.  Look last year at Jalen Hurts.  

[stl4life07]

32 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

My point is you I cant pretend it isn’t a possibility. No one saw this happening to Houston, no matter how bad of an Organization they might be. And while things have turned around in the past 4 years, we aren’t some power house organization, I think we still own the record for least wins in a 5 year span. And if this approach doesn’t work out, we could be looking at a rough go for a little while. We aren’t the Saints, we aren’t the Patriots, and we definitely aren’t the Steelers. Maybe we will be at some point, but a few year stretch does not make a great organization. 

The Texans are just the most shocking example because they traded that pick, but look at the rest of the league. Doubt most had the Falcons picking #4, maybe missing playoffs but not in the cellar. What about the Eagles all the way at #6? Or what happened to the NFC East as a whole? Not good enough? Look at the Niners at #12 who went 6-10, who beat us twice, who with a few bounces are easily a 9-7 team or even better even with all those injuries. Same with Minnesota picking at 14. Yes, those picks we traded away should be in the 24-32 range, but its no where close to a guarantee.

First off I do think of the Rams organization in the same way as the Saints. As a matter of fact when the Saints got Brees with Payton I knew they would be special. Some things you can see miles away. Some things you want to take some time before seeing. When the Rams hired McVay I knew this organization was going to be really good for a long time. Not saying we wont make some mistakes. We have already did. The Saints made mistakes, so have the Steelers, so have the Patriots. Have they suffered much long term from it? Nope. Most people dont even realize the mistakes because when you are a good organization you can minimize the effect of that mistake and keep on moving along being the successful franchise that they have been. Most would say the Rams made the mistake for paying Gurley and Cooks then obviously cutting Gurley and trading Cooks. How much did it hurt the Rams really? They had an (10-6) season won a playoff game and they replaced Gurley with a young superstar in the making in Akers and have Jefferson who showed without Kupp that he can get the job done. Plus they still do have Kupp and Woods. So again they made the mistake with Gurley and Cooks but the setback didnt crush the team. It hurt but the Rams was able to minimize it. They certainly didnt need the 1st round picks they lost to replace those players. So basically all Im saying is 1st round picks arent the end of the world if you dont have them. I believe the Rams are a great organization so when they do make a mistake it wont crush them like it has with a poor organization like the Texans and it has for decades with the Browns. 

Then as I pointed out I agree with you like anything can happen in a season but the one thing I love about the Rams is they arent scared to make moves. They arent reckless either I do think Snead and McVay always have a plan moving forward even if it doesnt seem like it. 

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by stl4life07

[StLunatic88]

36 minutes ago, stl4life07 said:

First off I do think of the Rams organization in the same way as the Saints.

I’m sorry but I just cant agree here. They are surely who we should aspire to be, but we aren’t anywhere close to them. It has been a very fruitful last handful of years for the Rams, but Peyton has been doing it in NO for like 16 years now. You can not compare the two. Literally our best years were their worst years for most of the 2000’s. Even before Peyton, Haslett was competitive sans his final disastrous season.

And we cant even pretend that we are on the level of the Patriots/Steelers

[stl4life07]

1 hour ago, StLunatic88 said:

I’m sorry but I just cant agree here. They are surely who we should aspire to be, but we aren’t anywhere close to them. It has been a very fruitful last handful of years for the Rams, but Peyton has been doing it in NO for like 16 years now. You can not compare the two. Literally our best years were their worst years for most of the 2000’s. Even before Peyton, Haslett was competitive sans his final disastrous season.

And we cant even pretend that we are on the level of the Patriots/Steelers

When we think of the Saints Payton first 4 seasons was (35-29) and won a Superbowl in the 4th season. McVay first 4 seasons with the Rams was (43-21) and went to the Superbowl in the 2nd season and beat Payton in New Orleans to get there. The only thing you have so far is the Saints have a Superbowl and the Rams don’t. It’s not far fetch to say that McVay start with the Rams is on par with Payton start. Now if you wasn’t buying the Saints when Payton first got there then fair enough. I’m just saying I bought the Saints being a good franchise when Payton and Brees got there because I know that the Saints was a joke with Haslett and Brooks. But you are right that we will see in the longer run if McVay can sustain the success with this franchise. I’m just saying right now I see no reason not to think so.