Obviously, the direct evidence is what comes out of the GM's mouth. If you can make an invention on how to transcribe interviews directly into ROD, I'd consider doing the work of posting it for you. But enough people have heard Snead say this. If you haven't, you've been living under a rock.Yet nothing posted showing it, got it
OFFICIAL 2026 NFL News: Trades, cuts, free agency, and more
- Thread starter dieterbrock
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
El Chapo Jr
Legend
No they haven't, you are connecting dots on your own accord. Trust me, I looked and found nothing saying that, but nice try. Myles Garrett is a generational talent. It is extremely possible that Snead would trade for him once he became available. I get that you're just sticking to your guns but there's zero factual proof for it. Again, if someone can post that specifically, I have zero issues saying I'm wrong.
Someone above posted an interview where he said the following:
"if you have a QB that's, you know, toward the end, you're always going to want to save future picks for the possibility of having to use that on a quarterback."
So...your stance is that, despite his direct words that he would save future picks if he didn't have the future QB problem solved, he doesn't know what he's talking about and would have traded for Garrett anyway. Gotcha.
There is not zero factual proof for my position. His words above are evidence supporting my stance. On the contrary, there is zero factual proof for yours.
El Chapo Jr
Legend
So you are using general conversation from Snead to say he only traded for Myles Garrett because of the Ty Simpson pick. I have a really hard time believing that without hearing that directly from Snead. There are a plethora of reasons why you trade for the reigning NFL defensive player of the year when you have a team that is ready made to win a super bowl. Your rebuttal is happened because of Ty Simpson. I'm sorry that's just crazy. To me it happened because Myles Garrett is just that fucking good that you have to trade for him if you can. Again show me something that proves this but then again I'm expecting nothing because that's all you been sending my way.
I'm not sure how trading the necessary assets needed to draft or trade for the predecessor of a 38 year old QB going year to year as to whether or not he plays to acquire Myles Garrett doesn't amount to NFL GM incompetence.
El Chapo Jr
Legend
Just to add to my side of the conversation, it's been reported in a lot of places and even Snead himself admitted. He'd been chasing after that trade well before they traded for Ty Simpson. I bet if I posted the video that, you would hear just that. Weird how that can't be done for the other part that you're arguing.
El Chapo Jr
Legend
Why would it if they're Super Bowl contenders? If a trade like that can push a team over the hump to win it all, every GM every fan out there would take that without hesitation. Super Bowls are hard enough to win and there'd be tons of fans that would have zero issue with Snead going for the jugular as he has before. Crazy to me the lengths people will go to defend some weird arguments. We are literally talking about the reigning NFL defensive player of the Year in his prime teaming up with the reigning MVP in Matt Stafford. If that's incompetence, sign me up. Would you take back all the picks we gave up to go get our last Super bowl?
I'm not trying to defend any argument. I haven't read through the thread. I just saw you post and disagreed.
They were Super Bowl contenders before the trade. The issue was the secondary and special teams which was fixed (hopefully). Going for the jugular doesn't not mandate a total disregard for the future. That's Mike Ditka/Ricky Williams trade like incompetence. And Snead hasn't done that at all.
You're forgetting a critical fact.
Snead knew at the time of the draft that they were already in trade discussions for Garrett. Further, at the time of those interviews when he says he felt flexibility to move future picks since he already had Simpson locked down (which implies the inverse that he didn't feel flexibility to move future picks if he didn't have Simpson), he knew then they were working on a Garrett trade.
Given this context, it wasn't general conversation for him. We may have taken it as general conversation but Snead knew that they were working on a big move. Instead of saying what he said about feeling free with Simpson in the house, he could have just as easily said "you trade for a generational player like Garrett whenever you have the chance." He didn't say that. Instead, he tied his flexibility to Simpson.
That's direct evidence. Don't care if you don't like it.
El Chapo Jr
Legend
Never said he did. However if you trade for a Myles Garrett without ever drafting Simpson, how is that incompetent? You have Matt Stafford as a QB. The idea of going all in for a Superbowl isn't bad at all. It's smart. The Rams obviously wanted Garrett well before the draft ever came around and there is never a guarantee a player you want will end up in your draft slot so connecting the 2 makes no sense to me. It makes way more sense that they saw an opportunity to add a generational talent and went for it to maximize the Rams chance to win it all.
Your moving the goal posts to saying that they knew the future and it was made specificly for Garrett. I don't think we are saying that.
We are saying that the Simpson pick allowed them to free up draft future capital. At one point it might have been for AJ Brown. Breer talked about how Max Crosby was in their sights.
The fact is that getting a QB, who they liked, meant they didn't have to protect the 26' first round pick. It opened them up for business. Whether for Brown, Crosby, or ultimately Garrett. That pick gave them options.
El Chapo Jr
Legend
That's still not direct evidence. Snead was chasing this man for a long ass time. He even admits checking in on the trade status from Garrett's contract adjustment which is WAY before the draft. When Snead wants something, he's aggressive as hell. He wanted Garrett because he plays a premier position in a pass happy league while being a generational talent. There's zero evidence that Snead would have backed off his pursuit of Garrett if Simpson wasn't drafted. Again, you still can't provide factual evidence supporting that.
Any decent GM has to have one eye on the present and one on the future. I have heard Snead state that. I heard Howie Roseman state that.
You're asking for conclusive evidence. It isn't that, but it is direct evidence. I'd like any evidence for your position.
El Chapo Jr
Legend
I'm not moving anything, its just that it frustrating to say something as fact yet you can't prove it. I didn't say anything about knowing the future, now you're just making shit up lol. I'm saying it doesn't matter if Simpson was drafted. If a Myles Garrett is available plus you have Stafford and a great chance to win it all, that type of team will show interest. Snead hounded the Browns until this trade was made. Guess Snead chasing him around for a long ass time equates to nothing. I just don't connect the 2 because you're talking about possibly the best defensive player at his position vs some really good players in terms of the flexibility. AJ Brown and Crosby are not Myles Garrett either.
It's incompetence because the QB is the most important and hardest position to fill for NFL teams.
It makes no sense for a team with an older QB going year to year to trade away the assets necessary to potentially replace him.
Snead hasn't and has never gone All In with no regard to the future. That only makes sense if his job were on the line and he could sneak such a move past ownership.
El Chapo Jr
Legend
And it seems to be working out that way which is awesome, however no one can prove that Snead wouldn't have traded for Myles Garrett if we didn't draft Ty Simpson. That's literally the only thing I've been saying all along. I'm personally happy that it looks like both could possibly be accomplished, but we get to see the Garrett trade play dividends this year since he's a proven player while we just have to be patient to see what Simpson is in the future since he most likely won't see the field.
Last edited:
El Chapo Jr
Legend
Yup, going hard after a Superbowl is incompetent because a team would be willing to trade for Myles Garrett....gotcha......we don't even know what we got in Simpson yet either although so far so good from the glimpses
El Chapo Jr
Legend
Wanting it to badly be direct evidence doesn't make it that. Now you want evidence because you can't find any
......View: https://youtu.be/5KQvzCP8I3E?si=yJvUFnr9HpcrUmIa
You are either being obtuse on purpose or you think these guys are operating in an environment where they don't have to be flexible, nor do they have to tweak their plans or their approach to address their needs.
They were facing two issues. Finding their future QB and adding immediate impact to get them over the hump this year.
They couldn't work out a trade prior to the draft for Garrett, mostly because Cleveland wasn't going to trade him until June 1st due to cap implications. The sane with AJ Brown. So then knowing that, they had to look at the 26' and 27' drafts as their best opportunity to find a top QB prospect.
Of course by draft night, the understanding that any trade for Garrett or AJ Brown, or Max Crosby, would have to include a 27' first rd pick. So taking Simpson solved problem 1 in their mind. It helped tgat they reportedly really liked him and identified him early.
Thus leaving problem 2 to being addressed with the future draft capital that was now no longer required to draft Stafford's heir apparent. Of course then that's exactly what they did.
It's a pretty basic strategy just looking at the situation. Snead then made the comments above after the draft about getting the QB now, and freeing up future draft capital.