Rams QB Stafford may not return this season

[Sad People]

Didnt he JUST sign an extension? Hes not gone when their core is gone.

[Duluther]

7 hours ago, jrry32 said:

I hope he does tank. Winning games does nothing for us.

I greatly enjoyed last year. I greatly enjoyed our Super Bowl championship. I greatly enjoyed knocking the 49ers out of the playoffs in the NFC Championship Game. Winning it all last year was more than worth the down year this year.

What a pathetic post. 

[Nabbs4u]

On 11/30/2022 at 5:13 AM, biggie. said:

Wouldn't be shocked if McVay retires. He's won a SB, made millions, has a case for HOF and can easily go into broadcasting.

He has no case for the HOF in any way shape or form if he retired after this season. Zero!

[LeotheLion]

8 hours ago, N4L said:

You can say what you want but its disingenuous to say that McVay is losing these games on purpose. He is trying his best to win football games. That is why this comment is so freaking hilarious to me. You actually believe this nonsense?? lmfao 

We're not losing games on purpose. There's a lot of layers with what is going on but it comes down to the injuries are making it so it is impossible to compete at the expected level and McVay is having his worst coaching season ever by far. 

[ET80]

1 hour ago, Duluther said:

9 hours ago, jrry32 said:

I hope he does tank. Winning games does nothing for us.

I greatly enjoyed last year. I greatly enjoyed our Super Bowl championship. I greatly enjoyed knocking the 49ers out of the playoffs in the NFC Championship Game. Winning it all last year was more than worth the down year this year.

What a pathetic post. 

It’s reality, though - winning games in the middle of a losing season is counterproductive to the long term health of a franchise. It’s further compounded by the Rams’ run last season, that shine doesn’t go anywhere anytime soon. There’s no benefit to trotting out guys for what amounts to a lost season (I mean, Cooper Kupp and his ankle injury is a prime example of the downside of playing through with nothing to play for).

Nobody likes to admit it - but football seasons like this are just as much a business decision as it is a source of pride and glory. We love for every season to end with a glorious playoff run, but when you only have three wins after 12 weeks with key injuries to elite players (Kupp, Aaron Donald, Stafford) you have to assess what exactly you’re trying to get out of the rest of the season.

Rams are not going to be able to defend their title. That’s pretty much guaranteed. So, why overextend players and expose guys to injury? Is one win really worth risking key guys for?

[biggie.]

1 hour ago, Nabbs4u said:

He has no case for the HOF in any way shape or form if he retired after this season. Zero!

Why?

[Duluther]

29 minutes ago, ET80 said:

It’s reality, though - winning games in the middle of a losing season is counterproductive to the long term health of a franchise. It’s further compounded by the Rams’ run last season, that shine doesn’t go anywhere anytime soon. There’s no benefit to trotting out guys for what amounts to a lost season (I mean, Cooper Kupp and his ankle injury is a prime example of the downside of playing through with nothing to play for).

Nobody likes to admit it - but football seasons like this are just as much a business decision as it is a source of pride and glory. We love for every season to end with a glorious playoff run, but when you only have three wins after 12 weeks with key injuries to elite players (Kupp, Aaron Donald, Stafford) you have to assess what exactly you’re trying to get out of the rest of the season.

Rams are not going to be able to defend their title. That’s pretty much guaranteed. So, why overextend players and expose guys to injury? Is one win really worth risking key guys for?

This is said frequently, but evidence needs to be shown. Is bottoming out a more likely way to get to the top? Or is developing your team (by sustaining a winning culture and prioritizing current player development over potential draft position)?

What dynasty or even SB winning teams were built off of probable tanking or even simply bottoming out prior to their SB regime? Truly, How many bottomed out franchises sustain their failures regardless of draft resources?

There's ample evidence of the latter approach working. Furthermore, as a fan, it's a pathetic mindset. Absolutely pathetic.

[Forge]

10 minutes ago, biggie. said:

Why?

The NFL has been pretty restrictive on electing coaches into the HOF. I think there are only like 25 head coaches enshrined. Not an easy way to get in. There's no way he's any higher than 5th in HOF among current coaches when it comes to HOF chances imo (if he were to retire now) and that doesn't include someone like Sean Payton if you wanted to put him in over McVay. 

[ET80]

3 hours ago, Duluther said:

What dynasty or even SB winning teams were built off of probable tanking or even simply bottoming out prior to their SB regime? Truly, How many bottomed out franchises sustain their failures regardless of draft resources?

I mean - off the top of my head, Tampa Bay (the team with the worst winning percentage in the NFL). They bottomed out and built a team around Jameis Winston, then replaced Winston with Tom Brady. Sure, it didn’t work with the intended QB - but those picks made from those losing efforts were the key reasons Brady won #7.

Furthermore, the Rams weren’t a team that had a culture of bottoming out - perennial playoff contender with Jared Goff, made a SB with Goff, won a SB with Stafford - the Rams have had a winning pedigree since Sean McVay got in, we’re not talking the Texans or Jaguars here. This is a mere speedbump overall to their current path.

3 hours ago, Duluther said:

Furthermore, as a fan, it's a pathetic mindset. Absolutely pathetic.

Is it though? I’m not a fan of a team for a season, I’m in this for the long haul. Stomaching ine bad season after the best ending ever isn’t particularly painful, IMO - nobody is winning every year, right? One losing season in a decade of playoffs is very bareable.

[ET80]

21 minutes ago, Duluther said:

What dynasty or even SB winning teams were built off of probable tanking or even simply bottoming out prior to their SB regime?

Also - Steelers in the 60s, Cowboys in the 80s, Patriots in the 90s. (I honestly don’t know enough about the 70s 49ers to know if they’re the exception).

I mean… pretty much every known dynasty started with a decade of pretty bad football. Steelers don’t go on their run without Joe Greene and Terry Bradshaw drafted at 1.1 in consecutive years, Cowboys don’t start their dynasty without Michael Irvin at 1.11 and Troy Aikman drafted at 1.1 a year later, New England doesn’t start their dynasty without firing Pete Carroll in favor of Bill Belicheck…

[biggie.]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

The NFL has been pretty restrictive on electing coaches into the HOF. I think there are only like 25 head coaches enshrined. Not an easy way to get in. There's no way he's any higher than 5th in HOF among current coaches when it comes to HOF chances imo (if he were to retire now) and that doesn't include someone like Sean Payton if you wanted to put him in over McVay. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_McVay_effect

They actually made a Wikipedia article for this phenomenon.

[Forge]

5 minutes ago, biggie. said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_McVay_effect

They actually made a Wikipedia article for this phenomenon.

This really doesn't mean anything to me. 

[jrry32]

1 hour ago, ET80 said:

Also - Steelers in the 60s, Cowboys in the 80s, Patriots in the 90s. (I honestly don’t know enough about the 70s 49ers to know if they’re the exception).

I mean… pretty much every known dynasty started with a decade of pretty bad football. Steelers don’t go on their run without Joe Greene and Terry Bradshaw drafted at 1.1 in consecutive years, Cowboys don’t start their dynasty without Michael Irvin at 1.11 and Troy Aikman drafted at 1.1 a year later, New England doesn’t start their dynasty without firing Pete Carroll in favor of Bill Belicheck…

Let's be honest, the Rams aren't going to be a dynasty. We went all in on a short window, won it, had our recent string of great injury luck go bad this year, and may be in position to have a couple more years of contending if our core guys don't retire. And as a team, we benefit a lot more from picking higher on Day 2 than we do winning some meaningless games this year.

[ET80]

2 hours ago, jrry32 said:

Let's be honest, the Rams aren't going to be a dynasty. We went all in on a short window, won it, had our recent string of great injury luck go bad this year, and may be in position to have a couple more years of contending if our core guys don't retire. And as a team, we benefit a lot more from picking higher on Day 2 than we do winning some meaningless games this year.

200% agree on this - windows for competitiveness are propped open if you replenish your young players and find a core guy or two in there. The Rams are increasing their odds on doing this with some higher value picks in rounds they have picks.