Jump to content

Rams 2018 offseason


holt_bruce81

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, packerrfan74 said:

Been a lot of fun watching yalls offseason. How are you guys feeling about this season? What about the next 5?

Very high confidence here. Lots of young talent with a great coaching staff and a lot of cap space. We have a handful of people to extend over the next couple of years absolutely. Eight draft picks to take some depth. Wade drafted 2 OLB last year one he loves and a couple LB he inherited he takes up every opportunity to talk up. So the perceived lack of LB depth might not be as big an issue as people who don't know our roster make it out to be. This coming season is going to be fun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NVRamsFan said:

Very high confidence here. Lots of young talent with a great coaching staff and a lot of cap space. We have a handful of people to extend over the next couple of years absolutely. Eight draft picks to take some depth. Wade drafted 2 OLB last year one he loves and a couple LB he inherited he takes up every opportunity to talk up. So the perceived lack of LB depth might not be as big an issue as people who don't know our roster make it out to be. This coming season is going to be fun. 

Confidence should be high. Team looks nearly unbeatable on paper. LBs arent all that important in Wades scheme anyways.. unless he has changed some things up. I'll be making it a point to catch some Rams games this year. I was quite disappointed when I realized we have to play you guys in LA this year. I was trying to gather some info regarding the outlook of your cap situation. Is this truly a one year swing for the fences with Donalds extension due next offseason? Or is this being over exaggerated.. does the FO have some wiggle room with contracts to keep some of these pieces together for multiple seasons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, packerrfan74 said:

Confidence should be high. Team looks nearly unbeatable on paper. LBs arent all that important in Wades scheme anyways.. unless he has changed some things up. I'll be making it a point to catch some Rams games this year. I was quite disappointed when I realized we have to play you guys in LA this year. I was trying to gather some info regarding the outlook of your cap situation. Is this truly a one year swing for the fences with Donalds extension due next offseason? Or is this being over exaggerated.. does the FO have some wiggle room with contracts to keep some of these pieces together for multiple seasons?

That game in LA has a very high chance to be prime time. Imagine ARod’s first game back a MNF in LA vs the team that made a bunch of off season noise. Might also be a good time for you guys to play us, before they get a couple games to gel more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, packerrfan74 said:

Is this truly a one year swing for the fences with Donalds extension due next offseason? Or is this being over exaggerated.. does the FO have some wiggle room with contracts to keep some of these pieces together for multiple seasons?

So Ive actually taken a look at this since the trade was made. Two important things happened with this deal vs the situation we would have been in with Watkins; the buzz seems to be that Cooks isnt demanding as much as Watkins got (or what OBJ is demanding), and now we dont have a 1st rounder to pay for the next 5 years ontop of the rest of these guys.

So making these few assumptions; Keeping Saffold & Whitworth around (reduced prices from current contracts), Extending Joyner & Donald this year on similar deals to the ones I have outlined before, Cooks is only looking for the ~$14m AAV, Peters & Gurley take high Year 1 money with less later on, and Goff takes lower dollars on the First 2-3 years with higher money on the back end.

If all those can be worked out, I think we can keep the core together. If we can keep the core 7-8 guys under a total of $100m (even as the cap goes up) We can keep them all here, but it will likely come at the loss of Michael Brockers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StLunatic88 said:

So Ive actually taken a look at this since the trade was made. Two important things happened with this deal vs the situation we would have been in with Watkins; the buzz seems to be that Cooks isnt demanding as much as Watkins got (or what OBJ is demanding), and now we dont have a 1st rounder to pay for the next 5 years ontop of the rest of these guys.

So making these few assumptions; Keeping Saffold & Whitworth around (reduced prices from current contracts), Extending Joyner & Donald this year on similar deals to the ones I have outlined before, Cooks is only looking for the ~$14m AAV, Peters & Gurley take high Year 1 money with less later on, and Goff takes lower dollars on the First 2-3 years with higher money on the back end.

If all those can be worked out, I think we can keep the core together. If we can keep the core 7-8 guys under a total of $100m (even as the cap goes up) We can keep them all here, but it will likely come at the loss of Michael Brockers.

And this assumes Brockers doesn't restructure to stay (which is wholly possible as he has gotten his big payday already and he's witnessed the DT/5-Tech market be anything but predictable the past several seasons).  As I'd stated in the News Forum thread, I think if/when we do extend Cooks it likely comes at the expense (whether in '19 or '20) of Robert Woods, but that's a trade-off I don't think many would take issue with.  Woods' role isn't one that's terribly difficult to fill (be it via increased role for Kupp, drafting a possession WR2 which are generally abundant in the mid/late rounds of many drafts, or even doing what a number of playoff teams have done in recent years and just cycling through the pool of aging cast-off vets who will come ring-hunting on single-year deals).  

I genuinely do not believe that Snead would be making these moves if he wasn't confident that an extension with Donald was imminent - by that I mean that while the domino to determine exactly how much we're going to ultimately end up paying him annually may have yet to fall, the club has resided itself to paying him what it takes as he's a clear franchise cornerstone.

I won't say that Gurley is expendable because I don't think he is, but I do believe that if push came to shove and we HAD to replace him, it could be done.  He's earned getting paid at this point, and I wouldn't put it past (nor would I think, if Gurley and his agent are realists, Gurley wouldn't expect) the team to frontload his contract to pay him heavy for his prime and invest in a successor not terribly long after.  You're obviously not going to replace a Todd Gurley with another Todd Gurley, but we're in a uniquely beneficial situation where at a time when the pendulum appears to be swinging back towards elite-tool RB's being valued more in the league (particularly in terms of draft pick investment), we already have ours and he's in his prime.  And the traditional collegiate powerhouses for churning out high-end runners (e.g. Georgia, Miami, Oklahoma, Alabama) are asserting dominance on the CFB recruiting stage.  You obviously can't predict the future, but  - not saying it will be easy, but it's also nowhere near the impossible mark people want to label it - this is certainly a core that can be sustained.  Suh likely is a one-year rental, but that's fine.  He's a luxury that really isn't costing us much of anything (other than possibly being able to pop some of the cap-hit of Donald's bonus onto this season's ledger) and will help put butts in seats and get more exposure for this team in terms of primetime games and, though it may be limited, he does have playoff experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NVRamsFan said:

A guy with 70 catches in 2 years coming off an all signing for $5 million a year is worth rioting over?

Absolutely. I can see analysis like that being the reason why the Bears gave him the lowest tender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...