Matt Stafford Traded to Rams

[Merlin]

The window was never closed. I think they compressed it unnecessarily.

There is no window when your QB performance is bottom third. It's been that way for a long time now. I think if you were in McVay's shoes you'd be signing a different tune my man.

 

[jrry32]

There is no window when your QB performance is bottom third. It's been that way for a long time now. I think if you were in McVay's shoes you'd be signing a different tune my man.

We had a window this year in Goff's worst season. You think wrong about me.

1. Technically we just need the offense to be better for this trade to have been a success. Goff was part of a (LOADED) team that made the Super Bowl, but regressed. Were not comparing Stafford to 2018 Goff, were comparing him to 2020 Goff (and beyond)

2. Agreed on this point - although with the caveat that we just need Stafford to stay better than Goff

That's not remotely true. Goff led us to a Super Bowl in 2018, won over 40 games over the past four years, and led us to the second round of the playoffs this year. If Stafford doesn't win us a Super Bowl, it's a failure. We were capable of winning with Goff. You only give up what they did if you're going all in on winning it all. Anything less is a failure.

And if we want to be technical, we're comparing Stafford moving forward to Goff moving forward. But if we're looking at past performance to determine future performance, you can't just ignore Goff's 2017 and 2018 seasons.

 

[Merlin]

We had a window this year in Goff's worst season.

The Rams gave it a good try but if you reloaded that same playoffs 10 times we probably come up short every time. And the biggest reason for that is Jared Goff at QB. Followed by a combination of Center and LG and an inability to contain a good RB with the speed we give up off ball. They didn't have the team last year unfortunately.

But chin up my man they might have the team this year.

 

[jrry32]

The Rams gave it a good try but if you reloaded that same playoffs 10 times we probably come up short every time. And the biggest reason for that is Jared Goff at QB. Followed by a combination of Center and LG and an inability to contain a good RB with the speed we give up off ball. They didn't have the team last year unfortunately.

But chin up my man they might have the team this year.

I'm far from sold on that. And I'm far from sold that Stafford is the magic bullet some of y'all believe him to be.

 

[FarNorth]

It seems we are talking about entirely different topics.

My post was about the impact one regular season game can have on playoff-seeding. A win over the Jets (without any other changes) flips the Rams and Bucs playoff-seeds.

I have yet to post anything on Donald's injury, or an opinion of Stafford

I agree Donald's injury really hurt the Rams' chances in Green Bay but "ruined' may be an exaggeration. Green Bay had injuries too ... played that game without its All Pro LT.

As far as the trade, that's a longer post but I do consider Stafford an up-grade.

I don't think "ruined" is an exaggeration with respect to Donald's injury. Imo it's exactly what happened.

 

[Merlin]

I don't think "ruined" is an exaggeration with respect to Donald's injury. Imo it's exactly what happened.

When your defense is that dependent on AD it means your front seven needs to improve. This is why I believe we need draft investments in edge and ILB at a minimum to help get this defense where it needs to be.

If McVay overfocuses on his offense he'll get his big explosion in points but we'll still get eliminated. So go make sure AD has enough around him. Fix that interior OL. Try to find a speed addition to the passing game. Then let's go get the Lombardi.

 

[FrantikRam]

We had a window this year in Goff's worst season. You think wrong about me.



That's not remotely true. Goff led us to a Super Bowl in 2018, won over 40 games over the past four years, and led us to the second round of the playoffs this year. If Stafford doesn't win us a Super Bowl, it's a failure. We were capable of winning with Goff. You only give up what they did if you're going all in on winning it all. Anything less is a failure.

And if we want to be technical, we're comparing Stafford moving forward to Goff moving forward. But if we're looking at past performance to determine future performance, you can't just ignore Goff's 2017 and 2018 seasons.

You basically restated what I said about comparing Stafford and Goff moving forward.

But you're dead wrong about needing to win a Super Bowl for this trade to be a success. A QB doesn't play defense or special teams - they don't control the outcome of games. If the offense is worse than 2020, it failed. If it's better, the trade was a success.

If you want to get technical about the 2018 comparison, the we can say:

If Akers has 20 TDs and the OL is a top 5 unit and if the defense plays elite in the playoffs and we don't win the Super Bowl, then yes the trade will have been a failure. But if Stafford doesn't have similar conditions then the two can't really be judged.

 

[FarNorth]

The Rams gave it a good try but if you reloaded that same playoffs 10 times we probably come up short every time. And the biggest reason for that is Jared Goff at QB. Followed by a combination of Center and LG and an inability to contain a good RB with the speed we give up off ball. They didn't have the team last year unfortunately.

But chin up my man they might have the team this year.

We had a possession offense and a great defense. It would have taken a VERY high level of defensive play and a consistent possession offense for the Rams to run the table. But it was not impossible although the Rams were certainly not favorites.

In the actual event it was Donald's and Kupp's injuries, not Goff, which ended the Rams' chances. Poor blocking, no downfield attack, and at least one crucial dropped pass were also factors. Had they been healthy I think it would have been a very close game though Green Bay would have been favored.

Looking at the offense as a whole, I just don't see enough breakout factors present for it to have functioned consistently at a high level. More consistent QB play might have gotten us a couple more victories in the regular season but would not have transformed the offense, especially in the playoffs. More consistent qb play would in turn actually also have required Whitworth and Akers to have stayed healthy and play action to have worked better.

But in my opinion it was still a possession offense. The O lacked speed to stretch the field, or any part of it, and consistent blocking either for the run or pass game. The offensive scheme and receiver routes were very predictable to defenses which seemed to sit on the short routes. Defenses also figured out the motion plays. Creativity in the red zone was almost nonexistent.

Imo if we want a different result with Stafford some of these underlying factors need to change. Our best immediate chances in hand are Whitworth returning to play at a high level and Akers becoming the game changer he should be. But this would just be the start to try to return to a 2017-18 level of play.

 

[Allen2McVay]

I don't think "ruined" is an exaggeration with respect to Donald's injury. Imo it's exactly what happened.

That’s OK. We just disagree.

The Rams #1 Defense (2nd in points allowed / 1st in yardage) against the Packers #1 Offense (1st in scoring / 2nd in yardage) faced-off.

Green Bay put up 32 points and almost 500 yards, including 188 rushing; converted 8-of-12 third downs without a turnover, and had possession for more than 36 minutes.

I just think the #1 Offense badly out-played the #1 Defense that game.

Like everyone here, I consider Donald the best defensive player in the NFL, and think the Rams would have played better with him if he was healthy. Just don’t think it would have changed the result.

David Bakhtiari is one of the best Left Tackles in the NFL and the Packers best OL. Green Bay was without him, and dominated.

 

[FarNorth]

When your defense is that dependent on AD it means your front seven needs to improve. This is why I believe we need draft investments in edge and ILB at a minimum to help get this defense where it needs to be.

If McVay overfocuses on his offense he'll get his big explosion in points but we'll still get eliminated. So go make sure AD has enough around him. Fix that interior OL. Try to find a speed addition to the passing game. Then let's go get the Lombardi.

I would say that, when your defense is that dependent on AD, it's because he's likely the greatest defensive player of all time.

Imo the front seven actually was fine. But it's AD that routinely and consistently creates the off schedule havoc. It would take some "Fearsome Foursome" level of overall talent to match the impact of AD.

I agree totally with your overall approach. We do need draft investments and free agent signings, our own or others, to maintain the defense. Also agree with your priority of getting AD help and then adding speed and blocking to the offense. Defense first, then enough reinforcements on offense to make it consistently effective and give Stafford a chance to step up.

 

[Corbin]

We had a possession offense and a great defense. It would have taken a VERY high level of defensive play and a consistent possession offense for the Rams to run the table. But it was not impossible although the Rams were certainly not favorites.

In the actual event it was Donald's and Kupp's injuries, not Goff, which ended the Rams' chances. Poor blocking, no downfield attack, and at least one crucial dropped pass were also factors. Had they been healthy I think it would have been a very close game though Green Bay would have been favored.

Looking at the offense as a whole, I just don't see enough breakout factors present for it to have functioned consistently at a high level. More consistent QB play might have gotten us a couple more victories in the regular season but would not have transformed the offense, especially in the playoffs. More consistent qb play would in turn actually also have required Whitworth and Akers to have stayed healthy and play action to have worked better.

But in my opinion it was still a possession offense. The O lacked speed to stretch the field, or any part of it, and consistent blocking either for the run or pass game. The offensive scheme and receiver routes were very predictable to defenses which seemed to sit on the short routes. Defenses also figured out the motion plays. Creativity in the red zone was almost nonexistent.

Imo if we want a different result with Stafford some of these underlying factors need to change. Our best immediate chances in hand are Whitworth returning to play at a high level and Akers becoming the game changer he should be. But this would just be the start to to try to return to a 2017-18 level of play.

Have to disagree with you there. Goff did not connect on any deep balls in GB even with WR’s, TE’s, and RB’s wide open downfield.

The guy got gun shy and became very predictable and easy to defend against.
Imagine GB only having to defend the whole whopping 12 yards from scrimmage sideline to sideline.

Goff needed to go, the head coach knew it, the GM knew it, and some players knew it as well which is evidenced by their immediate welcoming of Stafford.

 

[Merlin]

I just think the #1 Offense badly out-played the #1 Defense that game.

They did. Our defense got beat. And if you look at the defense's worst outings they all had breakdowns in contain and the run game in common. As good as our secondary was they still suffer greatly just like any secondary if they're dealing with a run game.

On the individual level Williams got worked (he had opportunities btw but didn't execute). Reeder got his ass beat too (to include a play near the goal line where he speared through the line and was in position to stuff the TD run but Aaron Jones juked him in the hole). It was across the board.

This is why I keep saying if they think they're a super bowl team finding one ILB would be a really big boost for their chances. And if they can sort the edges too this defense will have another fine year and this time around maybe be good enough to finish.

 

[jrry32]

You basically restated what I said about comparing Stafford and Goff moving forward.

But you're dead wrong about needing to win a Super Bowl for this trade to be a success. A QB doesn't play defense or special teams - they don't control the outcome of games.

We gave up two first round picks and a starting QB who was winning games, helping us make the playoffs, and winning games in the playoffs. It's a Super Bowl or bust trade. Otherwise, we could have kept Goff and our firsts to just make the playoffs.

If the offense is worse than 2020, it failed. If it's better, the trade was a success.

It's crazy that's where you're setting the bar. The offensive production was not good last year. It was by far the worst of the Goff/McVay era. I'd have bet a lot of money on Goff and McVay vastly exceeding it if he remained in 2021. The guy led us to a top 10 offense in three out of four years. We traded a winning QB not yet in his prime and two first round picks for Stafford. If we're not getting a Super Bowl out of it, we made a bad bet.

If you want to get technical about the 2018 comparison, the we can say:

If Akers has 20 TDs and the OL is a top 5 unit and if the defense plays elite in the playoffs and we don't win the Super Bowl, then yes the trade will have been a failure. But if Stafford doesn't have similar conditions then the two can't really be judged.

1. I'm not sure how this is remotely responsive to my point. We went to a Super Bowl under Goff. He proved he could get us there with enough talent around him. We didn't mortgage our future for Stafford because not winning the Super Bowl is good enough. If Stafford can't get us there, it was a bad trade. Give me Goff, the playoffs, and two firsts (and a third) over Stafford, the playoffs, and none of those picks.

2. I'm rolling my eyes at the claim that the defense was "elite" in the playoffs. They were elite against New England. They weren't elite against Dallas and New Orleans. Good? Sure. Elite? No.

 

[jrry32]

That’s OK. We just disagree.

The Rams #1 Defense (2nd in points allowed / 1st in yardage) against the Packers #1 Offense (1st in scoring / 2nd in yardage) faced-off.

Green Bay put up 32 points and almost 500 yards, including 188 rushing; converted 8-of-12 third downs without a turnover, and had possession for more than 36 minutes.

I just think the #1 Offense badly out-played the #1 Defense that game.

Like everyone here, I consider Donald the best defensive player in the NFL, and think the Rams would have played better with him if he was healthy. Just don’t think it would have changed the result.

David Bakhtiari is one of the best Left Tackles in the NFL and the Packers best OL. Green Bay was without him, and dominated.

David Bakhtiari doesn't have half the impact that Aaron Donald does. An OL is about the sum of its parts. Green Bay had some great depth pieces, and the OL was able to hold it together quite well against us (obviously, Tampa's superior EDGEs were able to exploit GB's depth better than ours). Our defense was built around Donald and Ramsey. Taking Donald away neutered the run defense and the pass rush. Yes, we can tip our caps to Green Bay, but Donald's injury transformed that game. We're not getting run over the way we were if Donald was healthy. I am confident in that.

We didn't lose the David Bakhtiari of our defense. We lost the Aaron Rodgers of our defense.

 

[payote75]

You basically restated what I said about comparing Stafford and Goff moving forward.

But you're dead wrong about needing to win a Super Bowl for this trade to be a success. A QB doesn't play defense or special teams - they don't control the outcome of games. If the offense is worse than 2020, it failed. If it's better, the trade was a success.

If you want to get technical about the 2018 comparison, the we can say:

If Akers has 20 TDs and the OL is a top 5 unit and if the defense plays elite in the playoffs and we don't win the Super Bowl, then yes the trade will have been a failure. But if Stafford doesn't have similar conditions then the two can't really be judged.

Football was a team game when Goff was our qb now if Stafford doesn't win it's no longer a team game it's a failed trade lmfaooooooooooo. The hypocrisy kills me.

 

[Giles]

Football was a team game when Goff was our qb now if Stafford doesn't win it's no longer a team game it's a failed trade lmfaooooooooooo. The hypocrisy kills me.

Super bowl win or bust. Why would you give up 2 1st, 1 3rd and a qb who has won you a ton of games for a guy who will only accomplish the same or even less? That's stupid no matter how you slice it. If we dont win the sb the trade is a failure. The rams could've made the playoffs with goff and kept the picks.

 

[FrantikRam]

We gave up two first round picks and a starting QB who was winning games, helping us make the playoffs, and winning games in the playoffs. It's a Super Bowl or bust trade. Otherwise, we could have kept Goff and our firsts to just make the playoffs.



It's crazy that's where you're setting the bar. The offensive production was not good last year. It was by far the worst of the Goff/McVay era. I'd have bet a lot of money on Goff and McVay vastly exceeding it if he remained in 2021. The guy led us to a top 10 offense in three out of four years. We traded a winning QB not yet in his prime and two first round picks for Stafford. If we're not getting a Super Bowl out of it, we made a bad bet.



1. I'm not sure how this is remotely responsive to my point. We went to a Super Bowl under Goff. He proved he could get us there with enough talent around him. We didn't mortgage our future for Stafford because not winning the Super Bowl is good enough. If Stafford can't get us there, it was a bad trade. Give me Goff, the playoffs, and two firsts (and a third) over Stafford, the playoffs, and none of those picks.

2. I'm rolling my eyes at the claim that the defense was "elite" in the playoffs. They were elite against New England. They weren't elite against Dallas and New Orleans. Good? Sure. Elite? No.

That's also where I set the bar with Goff. QBs don't win games no matter how much fans want to assign W/L records to them. If we had kept Goff next year, and he played more consistently, turned the ball over less and played better in general but we only won 8 games - in that hypothetical I'd be happy with Goff and my issue would be with the other areas that held us back.

By the same token, that's what I expect from Stafford. Better QB play. I have confidence in the rest of the team, but I'm not going to call it a failed trade if the QB and offense are top 5 but somehow the defense ends up ranked 30th and we lose 8 games.

The mortgage future talk has to stop. We didn't mortgage it when we traded for Goff. Didn't when we traded up for Ramsey. And we didn't when we traded for Stafford.

I don't care about mid to late first round picks - we've drafted well without them the last few years and I expect that will continue.

 

[Merlin]

If we dont win the sb the trade is a failure.

Ah but to whom. Perspective is the key here.

If we don't win the Super Bowl with Stafford it will be a failed trade to McVay and the Rams. Because they even said that trade was about winning a Super Bowl.

For me, however, I just want to see good QB play. Give me that Stafford and if you do I'm good just like I was when Goff was playing well. That is all I care about because I see a Championship as something you win as an organization. QB is a huge part of that. But it's not just that position.

And again for the record I do think we are going to win it all with Stafford. I thought the same early last year when I was telling myself "why not us." So for me it's once again just as likely that the Rams get the right moves made than any of these other assholes. In fact our chances are better now assuming they don't fuck up the rest of the roster.

 

[Allen2McVay]

David Bakhtiari doesn't have half the impact that Aaron Donald does. An OL is about the sum of its parts. Green Bay had some great depth pieces, and the OL was able to hold it together quite well against us (obviously, Tampa's superior EDGEs were able to exploit GB's depth better than ours). Our defense was built around Donald and Ramsey. Taking Donald away neutered the run defense and the pass rush. Yes, we can tip our caps to Green Bay, but Donald's injury transformed that game. We're not getting run over the way we were if Donald was healthy. I am confident in that.

We didn't lose the David Bakhtiari of our defense. We lost the Aaron Rodgers of our defense.

You're like a dog with a bone.

 

[payote75]

Super bowl win or bust. Why would you give up 2 1st, 1 3rd and a qb who has won you a ton of games for a guy who will only accomplish the same or even less? That's stupid no matter how you slice it. If we dont win the sb the trade is a failure. The rams could've made the playoffs with goff and kept the picks.

Dude I'm sorry but that's just a dumb statement. So if the rams make the Superbowl and score 45 points but give up 51. Stafford throws for 375 4 TDs and 1 int. The trades a bust. The only thing that would be a bust is management not getting the defense that they needed. That is one of a million hypotheticals. What would make it a bust is if they get to the Superbowl and Stafford plays like Goff then you would be right. Don't think your hoping for that though right???