Florio Runnin His Mouth Again

  • 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.

snackdaddy

Who's your snackdaddy?
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
13,054
Name
Charlie
Last season after the Rams swept the Seahawks in the regular season, Florio said several times that Seattle will beat the Rams in the postseason if they played again.

He mentioned it over and over the last few weeks of the season to his sidekick Chris Simms.

What he failed to mention is those games were close because the defense couldn't stop the run. Goff and the offense won those games.


He knows If Goff has another great season and gets a long term mega buck deal he simply gets to say he was wrong and he will own it. Then he will sugarcoat a new narrative and praise Goff .

You really think he will own it? Most those guys just forget it and move on when they're wrong. Which is a lot.

All of the NFL media talking heads know their controversial predictions make for a better segment weather the they mean it or not.

I understand some of the crap that comes out of Florio's mouth because he's in the business that requires attention and going with the flow is not going to keep him relevant.

Florio knows his TV and radio ratings are the only things that matter and he's going to stick to his guns on this subject until he's ultimately proven wrong.

And then he's on the next thing. Which is likely something he has no idea will be wrong or right.

When he's proven wrong he will come up with a new against the grain narrative just like many of the NFL media talking heads do. It's the business...

I've never seen one talking head tell another how wrong they were several years ago. And I rarely see one admit he was wrong.
 

snackdaddy

Who's your snackdaddy?
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
13,054
Name
Charlie
Another thing to consider. How many of these guys called Goff a bust after his rookie year? Never mind the coaching and system were clearly the worst in the NFL. Many of them claimed he was a bust.

And how many of them are willing to admit they were wrong? I'm still looking. A lot them doubled down on their claim and came up with the "System QB" thing instead of admitting they were wrong. To me, call him what you want. As long as we can call him a winner.
 

Selassie I

H. I. M.
Moderator
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
18,383
Name
Haole
This should qualify him to be the next GM for the Jets... they're currently in the market too.

Look for that headline soon. Perfect match.
 

Stl2La

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 23, 2014
Messages
4,432
Brady didn't always have Gisele and Jared needs to find his.

True but for the last 10 or so years Brady could afford to take “discounts” due to his wife being insanely rich. Goff already has a better looking woman in my opinion but she’s not one of the richest women in the world so advantage Gisele.
 

Legatron4

Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
9,489
Name
Wes
I'm glad you brought this up.

I don't like Florio, but it's not that far-fetched to think this.

Let's just start here:

How many of you would re-sign Goff for $30 million per year?
I wouldn’t pay a single QB in the NFL that much. That’s the problem.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,946
I wouldn’t pay a single QB in the NFL that much. That’s the problem.

But the going rate for star QBs is that much or above. It's hard to find one, and since the backup only plays for injury, it's hard to know what you have until you need him - and a failure there cripples the team. I guess I'm saying that refusing to pay the going rate on QBs has a strong risk of crippling the team - even though the team would be better off getting a discount on one, of course, like the Patriots get.
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
23,328
Name
Dennis
Goff already has a better looking woman in my opinion but she’s not one of the richest women in the world so advantage Gisele.

You should always marry up, it's beats the alternative.
 

FrantikRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
4,908
I wouldn’t pay a single QB in the NFL that much. That’s the problem.


I agree with that, and there's your answer.

Just because every other team is doing it doesn't mean we need to. No team has truly tried to let a QB go and find a rookie to take their place while keeping the supporting cast intact.
 

FrantikRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
4,908
But the going rate for star QBs is that much or above. It's hard to find one, and since the backup only plays for injury, it's hard to know what you have until you need him - and a failure there cripples the team. I guess I'm saying that refusing to pay the going rate on QBs has a strong risk of crippling the team - even though the team would be better off getting a discount on one, of course, like the Patriots get.


I disagree.

And as an example, last year Goff > Rodgers. Heck, last two years really. Partly because Rodgers got hurt, sure.

But mostly because of Woods/Kupp/Gurley/OL and Aaron Donald. If it were a guarantee that we could lock up elite weapons for Goff, I wouldn't mind re-signing him.

But it'll drive me insane if years from now Rams fans complain that we don't have enough around Goff - that may end up being true, but THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS when you pay a QB. Right now I choose the supporting cast over the QB. Goff has this year and next to change my mind - and he might.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,946
I disagree.

And as an example, last year Goff > Rodgers. Heck, last two years really. Partly because Rodgers got hurt, sure.

But mostly because of Woods/Kupp/Gurley/OL and Aaron Donald. If it were a guarantee that we could lock up elite weapons for Goff, I wouldn't mind re-signing him.

But it'll drive me insane if years from now Rams fans complain that we don't have enough around Goff - that may end up being true, but THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS when you pay a QB. Right now I choose the supporting cast over the QB. Goff has this year and next to change my mind - and he might.

If they were planning that, they would have drafted a QB to start developing, rather than hope they can find one soon.

The reason that doesn't get done is it's hard to find good QBs. Even ones that look good in college might be missing that little thing that turns talented amateur arms into good pros.

And the difference between Goff next year and the year after in salary is less than the cost of a star player at another - far less important - position.

It's like people have forgotten how long it took for the Rams to have a good quarterback again, after Bulger declined fairly rapidly.
 

Merlin

Damn the torpedoes
Rams On Demand Sponsor
ROD Credit | 2023 TOP Member
Joined
May 8, 2014
Messages
41,374
Foolio and Chris Simms are both morons and haters. I could care less what either of them think.
 

FrantikRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
4,908
If they were planning that, they would have drafted a QB to start developing, rather than hope they can find one soon.

The reason that doesn't get done is it's hard to find good QBs. Even ones that look good in college might be missing that little thing that turns talented amateur arms into good pros.

And the difference between Goff next year and the year after in salary is less than the cost of a star player at another - far less important - position.

It's like people have forgotten how long it took for the Rams to have a good quarterback again, after Bulger declined fairly rapidly.

That's because teams get stuck in these cycles:

Supporting cast makes QB look good + team wins

QB gets paid

Supporting cast gets worse

Team goes from being a contender to an average/above team

QB retires or moves on

Team now has no QB and no supporting cast


We haven't seen the end of this cycle play out yet because these mega deals are a recent thing, but Seattle, Atlanta, and Green Bay are currently in the middle of it. Nobody has gotten their hands on an elite supporting cast and chosen to keep them intact.

As far as Goff next year and the year after, the biggest difference is that along with him comes Kupp and JJ and many others to follow.

I'm actually not that against paying a QB in general when they are elite - Goff just isn't there yet. Easiest way for me to look at it is like this: Rodgers/Brees/Brady are significantly better than the next crop of QBs (in terms of individual talent IMO) - as such, they should be making $5 million more than any other QB.

But because of supply and demand, teams are paying Wilson and Ryan on that same level. Fuck that. That's ridiculous.
 

Akrasian

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 18, 2014
Messages
4,946
That's because teams get stuck in these cycles:

Supporting cast makes QB look good + team wins

QB gets paid

Supporting cast gets worse

Team goes from being a contender to an average/above team

QB retires or moves on

Team now has no QB and no supporting cast


We haven't seen the end of this cycle play out yet because these mega deals are a recent thing, but Seattle, Atlanta, and Green Bay are currently in the middle of it. Nobody has gotten their hands on an elite supporting cast and chosen to keep them intact.

As far as Goff next year and the year after, the biggest difference is that along with him comes Kupp and JJ and many others to follow.

I'm actually not that against paying a QB in general when they are elite - Goff just isn't there yet. Easiest way for me to look at it is like this: Rodgers/Brees/Brady are significantly better than the next crop of QBs (in terms of individual talent IMO) - as such, they should be making $5 million more than any other QB.

But because of supply and demand, teams are paying Wilson and Ryan on that same level. freak that. That's ridiculous.

Every position sees inflation in what they get paid, due to the salary cap continually rising. Brady is an exception - he is taking less than market rate. The thing is - QB is the most important position, and it's not particularly close. It is extremely difficult to be a championship caliber team without getting top QB performance. Teams know that - and so when they find a QB who is good enough to win, you pay him or somebody else will. And it's rare that you have a backup truly ready to step in and play at a high level. So yes, it's necessary to pay your QB - even second tier stars - or your team is usually in worse trouble - it's easier to find a good plug and play safety for instance than a QB, and it's easier to predict which college safeties will work out than which college QBs will.

As great as he is, Donald's contract is the bigger problem. In 2020 his cap hit is $25 million, and in 2021 it will be nearly $28 million. You can build a great defense without a great 3-4 DE, but instead with talent spread all over. You can't build a great offense without a QB close to the top, at least in the current NFL. Given the payroll crunch that is already here and will be worse over the next few seasons, the Rams should have traded Donald for a couple firsts, and then with Snead's usual dancing around the draft gotten a number of 2nds and 3rds and built an affordable, deeper team.
 

Riverumbbq

Angry Progressive
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
11,962
Name
River
I agree with that, and there's your answer.

Just because every other team is doing it doesn't mean we need to. No team has truly tried to let a QB go and find a rookie to take their place while keeping the supporting cast intact.

It will probably require a change thru collective bargaining. IMO, there should be a CAP on top salaries related to a specific percentage above the lowest team salaries. It's a team game and salary should represent the team aspect. It doesn't change the overall CAP, but gives lower and middle income players a bit more protection and incentive.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Does Goff have a wife that makes wayyyyy more money than him?


When Jared introduced his girlfriend to Brady and Gisele after they left she remarked "Who were those two gentlemen again?"


pjimage-1-6-1024x576.jpg





Also, didn't Florio say that the Rams wouldn't sign Goff to his 5th year option a few weeks back? And then like two days later they did.
 

Apt43Rams

UDFA
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
36


Bonsignore had a pretty good article rebuking media members that say the Rams will let Goff walk. It was on the The Athletic website. To summarize, he's not sure why media members still can't get past Goff's 1st season. Whenever Rams win, they credit McVay. Whenever the Rams lose, they blame Goff. He also makes a great point that one of the reasons McVay wanted to go to the Rams is that he studied Goff before meeting with the Rams and really wanted to work with Goff. If McVay saw the talent and since media is proclaiming him to be an offensive genius, then gotta trust McVay's evaluation of Goff's talent.

Good substance in the overall article. Article seems to be in direct response to Florio's comments but does not mention Florio by name.
 

majrleaged

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 10, 2016
Messages
4,539
I'm glad you brought this up.

I don't like Florio, but it's not that far-fetched to think this.

Let's just start here:

How many of you would re-sign Goff for $30 million per year?
I would pay him what ever it takes. He is a really good QB who is still growing and improving.The cap will go up and 4 years from now they will be paying QBs close to 40 mil.
 

InnovatedMind

NO MA'AM President
Joined
Aug 13, 2016
Messages
1,114
Name
Joe
Now everyone knows I'm tough on Jared Thomas Goff, but what Mr. Florio is missing is that IMO, Goff will not break the bank and will be similar to Tom Brady in making sure his team has the cap flexibility to remain competitive. Goff is humble and all about the team and nobody can debate that fact!

Great perspective. Completely agreed.