The dichotomy of Luck and Donald

[FrantikRam]

Without even looking it up, I know without a shadow of a doubt that if Luck and Donald were both playing, the Colts would either be favored or this game would be a push. All the pundits would be picking the Colts instead of the Rams.

Hell, even some of us would be picking the Colts.

Instead the world doesn't think the Colts stand a chance, really. Were Luck and Donald both be playing, this game would be a push for me. I would probably pick the Colts.

But.....Aaron Donald is a MUCH better football player than Luck. Like, not even in the same stratosphere of NFL player. ESPN, which frequently underrates Rams players recently ranked Donald as the 3rd best player in the NFL. PFF and all those advanced metric sites have Donald as a top 3 NFL player as well.

This interesting dynamic makes you wonder: SHOULD the Rams pay Donald? It's clear that whatever the number ends up being, it's going to be "Quarterback money", or close to it.

But if both of them being out leads us (and everyone else) to dramatically shift our perception of this game, what does that mean? I suppose another way of looking at it is this: would you trade Donald for Luck? I would...but I imagine some wouldn't. And if you wouldn't, what does it mean that both players being out dramatically shifts in the Rams favor, instead of the Colts?

 

[Dieter the Brock]

Trade Donald for Luck....
Doesn't Mannion already hold the clipboard?

GOFF

 

[den-the-coach]

I'm going to disagree because defensive tackles don't win titles, if they did, the Rams would have won a ton of them. Luck is a great Quarterback and he's everything to that team, Donald who is an outstanding tackle does not play quarterback and thus the Rams can withstand the loss more, now I agree the pass rush is superior with Donald and he creates havoc in the run game as well, but teams can recover and make the playoffs losing their defensive tackle, very few teams recover from losing their starting QB and the Colts were not very good with Luck either.

I look at this way, it's a lose lose for the Rams. If the Rams win, then everyone won't give the Rams any credit because it was Scott Tolzien, but if the Rams allow the Colts to hang around and lose by an Adam Vinatieri, then it's going to be even a longer way to Tipperary!

 

[Loyal]

I have never thought too much of Luck..We kicked that @ss last time when he was QB vs us. *shrugs

 

[FrantikRam]

I'm going to disagree because defensive tackles don't win titles, if they did, the Rams would have won a ton of them. Luck is a great Quarterback and he's everything to that team, Donald who is an outstanding tackle does not play quarterback and thus the Rams can withstand the loss more, now I agree the pass rush is superior with Donald and he creates havoc in the run game as well, but teams can recover and make the playoffs losing their defensive tackle, very few teams recover from losing their starting QB and the Colts were not very good with Luck either.

I look at this way, it's a lose lose for the Rams. If the Rams win, then everyone won't give the Rams any credit because it was Scott Tolzien, but if the Rams allow the Colts to hang around and lose by an Adam Vinatieri, then it's going to be even a longer way to Tipperary!

I think you're actually agreeing with me. The just of my post is that if Luck (read: QB) is truly that much more valuable than arguably the best non-QB in the NFL, does it make sense to pay Donald near-QB money?? It would seem the value is just not there.

 

[FrantikRam]

I have never thought too much of Luck..We kicked that @ss last time when he was QB vs us. *shrugs

Which is also kind of my point - what some people consider to be an average to above average NFL QB is more valuable than Donald - in that case should we be paying Donald near-QB money??

 

[Loyal]

Which is also kind of my point - what some people consider to be an average to above average NFL QB is more valuable than Donald - in that case should we be paying Donald near-QB money??

We pay the HOFer under our roof, imo.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Donald is awesome

but Luck is special too

team was 2-14 before he was there

think they went 11-5 in his first year....

 

[Afro Ram]

I think Donald deserves a significant pay raise, but I wouldn't sell the farm for him. The Rams have other players they are going to need to resign and keep on the team. If Donald goes down he's just dead weight and it is possible because he is human. He needs a contract that puts him in the top paid defensive tackles with PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES that get his pay day to the elite level.
Also a star QB is more valuable than a star DT. I wouldn't trade Donald for Luck, but for Rodgers or even Wilson or even Newton. That man would have to go!

 

[Mikey Ram]

I agree that Donald absolutely needs to and deserves to get paid...My empathy wanes quickly however when $ amounts approximating or hitting NINE numbers to the left of the decimal for a career (let alone 5 or 6 years) isn't fair or excessive compensation...I'm over Donald if he's played his last game for the Rams, though admittedly I'd rather see him stay...When you demand dollar amounts that make it doubtful that 3, 4 or more other important football players can be extended for lack of available cap money, then it makes it easy for me to wave good bye, without out the standard "thanks and good luck down the road"...

 

[DaveFan'51]

Without even looking it up, I know without a shadow of a doubt that if Luck and Donald were both playing, the Colts would either be favored or this game would be a push. All the pundits would be picking the Colts instead of the Rams.

Hell, even some of us would be picking the Colts.

Instead the world doesn't think the Colts stand a chance, really. Were Luck and Donald both be playing, this game would be a push for me. I would probably pick the Colts.

But.....Aaron Donald is a MUCH better football player than Luck. Like, not even in the same stratosphere of NFL player. ESPN, which frequently underrates Rams players recently ranked Donald as the 3rd best player in the NFL. PFF and all those advanced metric sites have Donald as a top 3 NFL player as well.

This interesting dynamic makes you wonder: SHOULD the Rams pay Donald? It's clear that whatever the number ends up being, it's going to be "Quarterback money", or close to it.

But if both of them being out leads us (and everyone else) to dramatically shift our perception of this game, what does that mean? I suppose another way of looking at it is this: would you trade Donald for Luck? I would...but I imagine some wouldn't. And if you wouldn't, what does it mean that both players being out dramatically shifts in the Rams favor, instead of the Colts?

I think the reason for the major shift in who's favored in this game is strictly because Luck is out! The Odds in Vegas automatically went from Rams +3 to Rams -3 1/2 when it was announced Luck was out!
And I don't think anyone would seriously consider taking the Colts over the Rams in the Season opener at the Coliseum IF they carefully looked at both Teams!
As a Rams Fan This^ would be Treasonous!!

 

[Alaskan Ram]

It takes a team and a great coaching staff to win in this league.

I'd say half the league has that.

It's the good teams with some difference makers that separate the pack.

The rams have addressed the deficiency in "coaching" and the "we not me". Don't shed the difference makers.

Let's skip good and go to great. Pay AD.

 

[thirteen28]

Let's skip good and go to great. Pay AD.

It's not a question of "pay AD or not pay AD". It's a question of how much. And if the leaks to Schefter, Albright, and Bonsignore have any truth behind them, then we are talking about "highest paid defensive player in the game" ... "very strong offers" ... "multiple, very fair offers" and so on. If these offers are on the table and it's still not enough, what then?

And how prepared are you to lose a number of players, like Ogletree, Watkins (if he works out with us), Tru, and so on, just to get AD under contract?

This is where AD is being selfish, assuming those offers are real. The salary cap is a zero sum game. Money that goes to one player necessarily and be design reduces the amount another player can get. Yes, it's business, but it's also about playing to win, and if AD is indeed willing to see the team around him decimated for his own contract, then it's fair to question how much he wants to win, and by extension, fair to wonder if we should go beyond the offers that are allegedly on the table.

 

[Alaskan Ram]

It's not a question of "pay AD or not pay AD". It's a question of how much. And if the leaks to Schefter, Albright, and Bonsignore have any truth behind them, then we are talking about "highest paid defensive player in the game" ... "very strong offers" ... "multiple, very fair offers" and so on. If these offers are on the table and it's still not enough, what then?

And how prepared are you to lose a number of players, like Ogletree, Watkins (if he works out with us), Tru, and so on, just to get AD under contract?

This is where AD is being selfish, assuming those offers are real. The salary cap is a zero sum game. Money that goes to one player necessarily and be design reduces the amount another player can get. Yes, it's business, but it's also about playing to win, and if AD is indeed willing to see the team around him decimated for his own contract, then it's fair to question how much he wants to win, and by extension, fair to wonder if we should go beyond the offers that are allegedly on the table.

Its a fair point that the cap has to be managed to keep our very good players and difference makers.
Serviceable players are plug and play. I trust Demoff and Snead to provide a serviceable roster within the limits of the cap.

AD was on the field last year for game 1. We lost 28-0. He got ejected.
As far as I see it, we don't need him until heart of the marathon anyway. If our team can come together, adding AD back into the fold can separate us.

I don't care how much or how little he gets paid. I just want us to keep him. To do that we have to pay him.
Sorry if I'm arguing to a strawman. I liked your points. I like my points too.

Go Rams.

 

[thirteen28]

Its a fair point that the cap has to be managed to keep our very good players and difference makers.
Serviceable players are plug and play. I trust Demoff and Snead to provide a serviceable roster within the limits of the cap.

AD was on the field last year for game 1. We lost 28-0. He got ejected.
As far as I see it, we don't need him until heart of the marathon anyway. If our team can come together, adding AD back into the fold can separate us.

I don't care how much or how little he gets paid. I just want us to keep him. To do that we have to pay him.
Sorry if I'm arguing to a strawman. I liked your points. I like my points too.

Go Rams.

But he has to take what's offered. We can't pay him if he won't take the Rams offers, and if making him the highest paid defender turns out to not be good enough for him ...? There are limits to what we can offer.

Another thing to consider is what happens if our offense takes off ... maybe the defense isn't on the field as much ... maybe the defense without him is good enough with an improved offense. Then what?

 

[Angry Ram]

I have never thought too much of Luck..We kicked that @ss last time when he was QB vs us. *shrugs

I think any time a QB throws for 40 TDs, in a season, average around 4000 yards in the air every year except the one they get hurt, 3 straight 11-5 seasons and playoff appearances, I'd say he's pretty damn good.

 

[den-the-coach]

I think you're actually agreeing with me. The just of my post is that if Luck (read: QB) is truly that much more valuable than arguably the best non-QB in the NFL, does it make sense to pay Donald near-QB money?? It would seem the value is just not there.

 

[Loyal]

I think any time a QB throws for 40 TDs, in a season, average around 4000 yards in the air every year except the one they get hurt, 3 straight 11-5 seasons and playoff appearances, I'd say he's pretty damn good.

*shrugs