Things I think I know

[WarnerToBruce]

Variation on a theme.

FO:
Rams front office has never been better. It is clear they are all rowing in the same direction towards fielding a competitive team for as long as they can through the christening of this new football palace in LA. It felt like Fisher's way (even if MILDLY successful) still wouldn't have resulted in this fast-paced craziness that LA loves -- perfect for the next decade in their new home. Think Lakers. The number of fans may dwindle a bit after a down season or two, but the love affair from a few great years can easily fill Stan's seats for a decade.

AD:
I love AD. He is clearly a generational level player who brings a unique dimension to the d-line. However, I also think there was a reason the FO took as long as they did to work out his contract. I believe there was a philosophical discussion on whether it's worth allocating that much spend on a position that can be accounted for by the opposing offense. The only real way to green light this move is to take advantage of the low contract of the rookie QB (more on that later) and put some high-end pieces around him. And even that hasn't worked out so far. It may turn out this wasn't the best move, but it's really hard to fault the FO when you're dealing with the uniqueness and star quality of AD. If he continues to behave like an arse on camera though...

QB:
Goff went from bust, to system QB, to where he is now, where it seems 50/50 between "still a system guy" and "elite". No matter where you place him, it is clear the Rams are going to have some big decisions to make in few years. We've seen it before, in this era of the new rookie deals QBs (why couldn't be a year earlier? yeah SB, good for you). Seahawks tried their best to deal with this a few years back, before Wilson's new deal, and chose to go all-in on him. What will we do? It's pretty clear to me that McVay is a superstar OC/HC. I think this is the one thing about which nobody can argue (even Ram haters). So, who's to say we wouldn't be better off with a QB a tier below Goff that could succeed in McVay's system and use that money to keep the team competitive for its first decade in their new digs?

QB continued:
I have a solution for the QB dilemma. Since the QB is such a unique position, and the NFL even has a suite of special rules around protecting these guys, why not take the QB salaries off the cap? The QB could be like the NBA/MLB of NFL with either no cap or luxury cap driven. The rookie deal and everything else could remain the same, just after the first deal, it comes off the books, so to speak. Problem solved.

Go Rams. Rams 63, Chiefs 49.

 

[Rainram]

I have a solution for the QB dilemma. Since the QB is such a unique position, and the NFL even has a suite of special rules around protecting these guys, why not take the QB salaries off the cap? The QB could be like the NBA/MLB of NFL with either no cap or luxury cap driven. The rookie deal and everything else could remain the same, just after the first deal, it comes off the books, so to speak. Problem solved.

With all due respect my fellow Rams fan, that is completely implausible for multiple reasons.

To your overall point though...there are advantages to having QBs on their rookie deals, but there are disadvantages too (namely...a rookie/young QB).

You can win just as well, and build a Super Bowl caliber roster, through an array of roster configurations and cap allocations. That’s the job of the front office, scouts, coaches, etc. I have faith in the leadership of this team to keep this team competitive for quite some time, and they’ve locked up the right players IMO...Goff will be one of those as well.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Variation on a theme

?? Theme ??

 

[Rainram]

?? Theme ??

I believe he’s referencing Peter King’s articles, oft-titled “10 things I think I think.” I think

 

[Rmfnlt]

I believe he’s referencing Peter King’s articles, oft-titled, 10 things I think I think. I think

Ohh... never read his stuff... if he can't write a lucid sentence, he's not worth my time ("I think... I think... ) Silly.

 

[-X-]

?? Theme ??

Yes, Ralphie. A theme.

 

[rdw]

Yes, Ralphie. A theme.

dumb question.. what's the arrow pointing at?

 

[-X-]

dumb question.. what's the arrow pointing at?

I dunno. Found the picture on the interwebz.

 

[551staaa]

I have read that there is a 1980s math book on the teacher's desk in the movie. Apparently, things like this bother some people.

 

[Mackeyser]

Variation on a theme.

FO:
Rams front office has never been better. It is clear they are all rowing in the same direction towards fielding a competitive team for as long as they can through the christening of this new football palace in LA. It felt like Fisher's way (even if MILDLY successful) still wouldn't have resulted in this fast-paced craziness that LA loves -- perfect for the next decade in their new home. Think Lakers. The number of fans may dwindle a bit after a down season or two, but the love affair from a few great years can easily fill Stan's seats for a decade.

AD:
I love AD. He is clearly a generational level player who brings a unique dimension to the d-line. However, I also think there was a reason the FO took as long as they did to work out his contract. I believe there was a philosophical discussion on whether it's worth allocating that much spend on a position that can be accounted for by the opposing offense. The only real way to green light this move is to take advantage of the low contract of the rookie QB (more on that later) and put some high-end pieces around him. And even that hasn't worked out so far. It may turn out this wasn't the best move, but it's really hard to fault the FO when you're dealing with the uniqueness and star quality of AD. If he continues to behave like an arse on camera though...

QB:
Goff went from bust, to system QB, to where he is now, where it seems 50/50 between "still a system guy" and "elite". No matter where you place him, it is clear the Rams are going to have some big decisions to make in few years. We've seen it before, in this era of the new rookie deals QBs (why couldn't be a year earlier? yeah SB, good for you). Seahawks tried their best to deal with this a few years back, before Wilson's new deal, and chose to go all-in on him. What will we do? It's pretty clear to me that McVay is a superstar OC/HC. I think this is the one thing about which nobody can argue (even Ram haters). So, who's to say we wouldn't be better off with a QB a tier below Goff that could succeed in McVay's system and use that money to keep the team competitive for its first decade in their new digs?

QB continued:
I have a solution for the QB dilemma. Since the QB is such a unique position, and the NFL even has a suite of special rules around protecting these guys, why not take the QB salaries off the cap? The QB could be like the NBA/MLB of NFL with either no cap or luxury cap driven. The rookie deal and everything else could remain the same, just after the first deal, it comes off the books, so to speak. Problem solved.

Go Rams. Rams 63, Chiefs 49.

I LOVE that idea regarding the QB salary being off the cap. Still subject to the rules regarding rookie contracts, but definitely a luxury tax situation if the QB contract is, say, 200% of the average of the top 10% of contracts for the top 10 players at every position. That's enough data points that the average would likely be around $14M or so which would put any contract above $28M in the luxury tax situation.

Then, if Jerry Jones wants to pay Dak Prescott $50M and pay the luxury tax, he could just do it....hehehe

But yeah, that might be the best idea about the Cap and/or salaries that I've ever heard.

 

[fearsomefour]

I LOVE that idea regarding the QB salary being off the cap. Still subject to the rules regarding rookie contracts, but definitely a luxury tax situation if the QB contract is, say, 200% of the average of the top 10% of contracts for the top 10 players at every position. That's enough data points that the average would likely be around $14M or so which would put any contract above $28M in the luxury tax situation.

Then, if Jerry Jones wants to pay Dak Prescott $50M and pay the luxury tax, he could just do it....hehehe

But yeah, that might be the best idea about the Cap and/or salaries that I've ever heard.

Kind of defeats the purpose of having a hard cap doesn't it?

 

[JRobinson]

How to take this thread....

What I got most out of it was probably the AD section. Everyone has their own opinions on this subject, and there are multiple ways to build a legit roster.

Personally, it’s really quite simple: When you have a once in a generational player, you almost have to lock him up. Why? Because that one guy can keep you competitive on that side of the ball by himself... not wins necessarily, but competitive. When teams have to game plan around certain guys, that naturally leaves room for average players to make plays.

Allocating money is obviously no easy task. Every team has to deal with this issue and although there is a lot of planning and number crunching that has to happen, there is some luck involved too. Meaning, you have to guess right on other players development and future contracts. Right or wrong, Snead has done a stellar job IMO and we should be grateful to have him.

 

[tklongball]

As far as Goff is concerned, I know what he is, and honestly, I could give a $hit less what the Media/Talking Heads/Commmentators, etc. think he is. It has no bearing on how many games we will win or lose. I don't listen to any of those idiots, haven't for years. I don't watch pregames, I don't watch halftime shows, I don't watch Sports TV or listen to Sports Talk on the radio. I realized about 25 years ago that it is a waste of time.

 

[JRobinson]

As far as Goff is concerned, I know what he is, and honestly, I could give a $hit less what the Media/Talking Heads/Commmentators, etc. think he is. It has no bearing on how many games we will win or lose. I don't listen to any of those idiots, haven't for years. I don't watch pregames, I don't watch halftime shows, I don't watch Sports TV or listen to Sports Talk on the radio. I realized about 25 years ago that it is a waste of time.

Except Rampage Radio Podcast, listen to those guys, they’re good.

 

[Corbin]

I have read that there is a 1980s math book on the teacher's desk in the movie. Apparently, things like this bother some people.

Well considering she is a music teacher why is there a math book on HERE F'N DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESKKKKK!!!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Merlin]

Re: the front office I am happy with the job they've done overall. Nobody bats a thousand, but they've for the most part aggressively moved to improve the roster and it's hard to criticize them for that even when some of the moves don't work. Biggest thing is they're locking up our best players.

From here they need to trim some fat on defense and reload a good part of that roster, but that is probably going to take a couple drafts due to the combination of draft capital and selecting so late. And for now we're still the envy of the league with a young and talented core and a loaded staff and I'll take that.

Sure feels great to be a Rams fan now, and if all those years of losing have taught us anything it should be to appreciate these windows when they open up.

 

[Mackeyser]

Kind of defeats the purpose of having a hard cap doesn't it?

Not at all. What it does is remove the ridiculous balancing requirement for teams. It puts teams on a MUCH more level playing field because you no longer have teams that have to worry about being in some kind of "win now" mode with a rookie QB as well as teams wouldn't have to lose core players because their QB is up for his second contract.

And it's not like the cap disappears. There would still be numbers over which a luxury tax would have to be paid and that tax would have to be pretty steep.

But it would prevent the tension between QB salaries and literally every other salary in the league. There are tons of solid vets who won't get paid and might not even have a job because there are only so many rookie QBs in the league at any one time.

So, no, I don't think it defeats the purpose of having a hard cap. Rather, I think the flexibility alleviates the imbalance caused by the rookie/veteran QB salary structure.

 

[fearsomefour]

Not at all. What it does is remove the ridiculous balancing requirement for teams. It puts teams on a MUCH more level playing field because you no longer have teams that have to worry about being in some kind of "win now" mode with a rookie QB as well as teams wouldn't have to lose core players because their QB is up for his second contract.

And it's not like the cap disappears. There would still be numbers over which a luxury tax would have to be paid and that tax would have to be pretty steep.

But it would prevent the tension between QB salaries and literally every other salary in the league. There are tons of solid vets who won't get paid and might not even have a job because there are only so many rookie QBs in the league at any one time.

So, no, I don't think it defeats the purpose of having a hard cap. Rather, I think the flexibility alleviates the imbalance caused by the rookie/veteran QB salary structure.

The cap was restructured to allow teams to avoid being strapped with huge rookie QB deals, ala Bradford.
The current set up is better than the previous.
This could happen with the QB number not counting against the cap but I doubt it would.
First, it puts more pressure on owners to spend more money.
Unless there was a separate cap for QBs it would leave only the draft for "have not" owners to land a gold QB.
Could also see "have" owners signing a QB to keep them from a rival. Even if they had their starter.
It would help solve one problem.....that owners may or may not see as a problem.....but create others.

 

[Ewe83]

I hope I'm misunderstanding you and you're not suggesting we let Goff go? After how snake bit we'd been at QB for the past 15 years, hell no! That would be a horrible decision, pay Goff, figure the rest out

 

[Mackeyser]

The cap was restructured to allow teams to avoid being strapped with huge rookie QB deals, ala Bradford.
The current set up is better than the previous.
This could happen with the QB number not counting against the cap but I doubt it would.
First, it puts more pressure on owners to spend more money.
Unless there was a separate cap for QBs it would leave only the draft for "have not" owners to land a gold QB.
Could also see "have" owners signing a QB to keep them from a rival. Even if they had their starter.
It would help solve one problem.....that owners may or may not see as a problem.....but create others.

No, that couldn’t happen since the exclusion would only apply to starting QBs.

And I have no issue with owners spending more on players, though I’m sure in negotiations that the net wouldn’t me massively different.