Jump to content

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Goff led the Rams to 42 regular season wins and a Super Bowl appearance over the last four years. And he did that as a young QB who hadn't yet reached his prime age. If your ceiling is being a Super Bowl contender every year because you have the next Mahomes or Brady, yeah, you're probably not getting there. But if your desire is to consistently be a playoff team, yeah, Goff has proven he can lead a team to that. And let's be honest, the odds of any team finding the next Mahomes or Brady aren't good.

That’s true obviously finding a HOF QB is difficult, but I prefer to at least try.  It’s going in reverse, it’s all backwards.  You don’t go get the over priced middle of his career flattened off average to above average starter at the beginning of a rebuild.  If you assemble a talented roster and strike out on a 1st rd qb or just never end up taking one based on happenstance you can always go out there and overpay for a Goff or Cousins or Wentz or Tannahill or Jimmy G or aging Matt Ryan or Philip Rivers.  There’s no need to secure and lock down average in advance.

 

At 25 mil a year Goff had 0 trade value and now we’re paying him 30. It’s not the end of the world but the commitment to Goff and unlikely hood they will draft a top 10 qb for another 4 years is disappointing to me, others disagree.  (With there cap space and draft capital I’m assuming they pick top 10 again next year before ascending to a middle of the pack out of range to grab a qb territory)

Edited by BigC421/
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BigC421/ said:

That’s true obviously finding a HOF QB is difficult, but I prefer to at least try.  It’s going in reverse, it’s all backwards.  You don’t go get the over priced middle of his career flattened off average to above average starter at the beginning of a rebuild.  If you assemble a talented roster and strike out on a 1st rd qb or just never end up taking one based on happenstance you can always go out there and overpay for a Goff or Cousins or Wentz or Jimmy G or aging Matt Ryan or Philip Rivers.  There’s no need to secure and lock down average in advance.

 

At 25 mil a year Goff had 0 trade value and now we’re paying him 30. It’s not the end of the world but the commitment to Goff and unlikely hood they will draft a top 10 qb for another 4 years is disappointing to me, others disagree.  (With there cap space and draft capital I’m assuming they pick top 10 again next year before ascending to a middle of the pack out of range to grab a qb territory)

They're paying Goff the same money they were paying him previously. All they did is change the accounting of that money. Also, Goff didn't have zero trade value. What Wentz got is about what his trade value was coming off his worst year in the NFL. He's now heading into the window where pocket passers hit their primes. I wouldn't write him off yet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

They're paying Goff the same money they were paying him previously. All they did is change the accounting of that money. Also, Goff didn't have zero trade value. What Wentz got is about what his trade value was coming off his worst year in the NFL. He's now heading into the window where pocket passers hit their primes. I wouldn't write him off yet.

I highly doubt that.  If any team is valuing Goff at what the Eagles got for Wentz it could be argued the Lions got one of the greatest trade packages in NFL history.  Basically saying they got the equivalent of 3 1sts and 2 3rds.  Frank Reich believes in Wentz and apparently Holmes believes in Goff.  No one was giving up those picks for Goff with his contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

I highly doubt that.  If any team is valuing Goff at what the Eagles got for Wentz it could be argued the Lions got one of the greatest trade packages in NFL history.  Basically saying they got the equivalent of 3 1sts and 2 3rds.  Frank Reich believes in Wentz and apparently Holmes believes in Goff.  No one was giving up those picks for Goff with his contract.

Based on the Panthers' offer, the Lions valued Goff somewhere in the late first to early second round range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigC421/ said:

You seem primarily concerned with this season IE immediate results.  That is the absolute least of my concerns.  Once you have a solid average to above average roster it becomes quite the task to obtain a franchise qb.

I understand why they did it and I will have to look at some of the cap ramifications. I was simply hoping for them to accept as much pain as possible now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Based on the Panthers' offer, the Lions valued Goff somewhere in the late first to early second round range.

I don’t follow that logic.  It’s impossible to apply a normal draft trade chart in a covid under scouted year.  Some have made the argument that this year future picks mite hold close to equal or even favorable value.  To each there own it can’t be gauged but if you just take Teddy and Goff out of each offer there pretty similar and that’s essentially assuming the Rams picks are back end add in the outside chance injury happens or things just don’t work and it’s a close call.  I don’t think your going to argue Teddy is valued at a late 1st?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

I don’t follow that logic.  It’s impossible to apply a normal draft trade chart in a covid under scouted year.  Some have made the argument that this year future picks mite hold close to equal or even favorable value.  To each there own it can’t be gauged but if you just take Teddy and Goff out of each offer there pretty similar and that’s essentially assuming the Rams picks are back end add in the outside chance injury happens or things just don’t work and it’s a close call.  I don’t think your going to argue Teddy is valued at a late 1st?

People have made that argument, but is there any proof of that? My logic is simple. I evaluated the trades on the draft value chart using the traditional methods of valuation. Under the method typically used, Goff is valued as somewhere in the late first to mid second round range (EDIT: my earlier comment that says "early second" is in error). You're the one who said Goff had zero value. That's not borne out by the trade value chart, the comments of Brad Holmes, or the Lions' current actions.

Edited by jrry32
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

People have made that argument, but is there any proof of that? My logic is simple. I evaluated the trades on the draft value chart using the traditional methods of valuation. Under the method typically used, Goff is valued as somewhere in the late first to mid second round range (EDIT: my earlier comment that says "early second" is in error). You're the one who said Goff had zero value. That's not borne out by the trade value chart, the comments of Brad Holmes, or the Lions' current actions.

Not to squabble over semantics but A) I’m assuming in your assessment your not assigning any value to Teddy only to Goff?  You would have to get a grade on Teddy in order to assume the trade values Goff at X.  B) curious what value chart your using for future picks? I only ask because I can’t find anything reliable 

Edited by BigC421/
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BigC421/ said:

Not to squabble over semantics but A) I’m assuming in your assessment your not assigning any value to Teddy only to Goff?  You would have to get a grade on Teddy in order to assume the trade values Goff at X.  B) curious what value chart your using for future picks? I only ask because I can’t find anything reliable 

I did assign value to Teddy. In assessing the two trades, I assigned Teddy fourth round value. For future picks, I discounted them using a couple different methods, which is why I am offering a range instead of an exact value. Some discount them a round for each year in the future. Under that valuation, Goff is worth a pick in the 20's. I think that valuation is overly harsh towards future picks, so my method is to discount the 2022 1st to the first pick of the second round and then discount the next first by half a round (17th pick of the second round). Under that valuation, Goff is worth somewhere in the mid second round range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

I did assign value to Teddy. In assessing the two trades, I assigned Teddy fourth round value. For future picks, I discounted them using a couple different methods, which is why I am offering a range instead of an exact value. Some discount them a round for each year in the future. Under that valuation, Goff is worth a pick in the 20's. I think that valuation is overly harsh towards future picks, so my method is to discount the 2022 1st to the first pick of the second round and then discount the next first by half a round (17th pick of the second round). Under that valuation, Goff is worth somewhere in the mid second round range.

Interesting.  I definitely value future 1st rd picks more than that.  I’ll trade the 49th pick for a 23 1st that could land anywhere all day long.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough sell that Goffs worth anything in the open market. Feel like Rams would of dealt him prior to the Stafford trade vs throwing him in a Lions deal. No ones buying he's turning this ship around( Unless you bought Quinn/Patricia... then I get it.. ) I think we should be prepaired for a Kirk Cousins/Nick Foles type performance.

Good thing still is that it doesn't mess with the future too much... Lions were basically strapped to Goff for at least two years...and still are. They can still draft a QB this year, next year, or the year after that even. They freed up enough money for the draft/a couple roster players. Just because you have Jared Goff on the roster doesn't mean you don't get a QB you love if he's available too you... Patrick Mahomes wasn't the 1st rated QB, infact Trubisky went before him so... yeah... If you like/love a QB you kind of have to roll with it. Rams organization proved that Goff isn't leading a team anywhere but can manage a good game and get you wins if the rest of the team is strong. That defense and Matthew Stafford should really be something. Rams love playing with a lead.

Feels like I just slammed Goff but he's average/slightly above,imo, which is pretty good for a league full of bad QB frankly. He's just stepping into some rough stuff year 1, hopefully the Oline really helps him out.

It actually looks like this money is freed up cause of the money that was used for Brockers,(imo), so feel how you want about that. 

Just shrugged my shoulders, not a big deal either way... but if someone wants to be knit-picky it is kinda like... Why? Whatever, won't make a difference either way imo. 

Edited by SimbaWho
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s a good thing to restructure him. I may be in minority but I’d rather have a game manager type QB and build everything else up on team. 

Stafford had way more talent but can’t win when all your talent is at and rest of roster is blah.

Goff deal is friendly for what he brings to table IMO. 
 

my biggest issue with Stafford was he pushed too hard at times and it led to some of dumbest throws I’ve ever seen. 
 

im excited for a more balanced offense and better defense. Crossing my fingers 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, detfan782004 said:

I think it’s a good thing to restructure him. I may be in minority but I’d rather have a game manager type QB and build everything else up on team. 

Stafford had way more talent but can’t win when all your talent is at and rest of roster is blah.

Goff deal is friendly for what he brings to table IMO. 
 

my biggest issue with Stafford was he pushed too hard at times and it led to some of dumbest throws I’ve ever seen. 
 

im excited for a more balanced offense and better defense. Crossing my fingers 

I really think this matches up with what Holmes and MCDC have said in that, they just want Goff to play quarterback and not worry about being some sort of savior. This lends credence to the idea that building a team is more important to than having one great player. 

Also very important for everyone to keep in mind, it is not as though Goff is without talent, intellect, or experience. Granted he did have some regression the last couple of years, but maybe just maybe, it wasnt all his fault 😊

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BarryTheBest said:

I really think this matches up with what Holmes and MCDC have said in that, they just want Goff to play quarterback and not worry about being some sort of savior. This lends credence to the idea that building a team is more important to than having one great player. 

Also very important for everyone to keep in mind, it is not as though Goff is without talent, intellect, or experience. Granted he did have some regression the last couple of years, but maybe just maybe, it wasnt all his fault 😊

I think in this situation you have to "hope for the best, prepare for the worst". The Goff that we have seen who did regress might be the real guy. It could also be that McVay started moving off of him, made some bad playcalls of his own, etc. and that he is better than what we've recently seen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Goff restructure is just another proof that the FO knows THEIR plan...THEY have a plan...and they're gonna do it...no point in just saying over and over that Goff basically sucks and this is a bad decision and boom done...Its dramatic and annoying..And to be clear are you saying you wanted the Panthers trade where we get Teddy instead? 

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...