What will it take to make the Stafford trade worth it in your opinion?

[Florida_Ram]

BTW, Can't compare his stats to Stafford's... completely diff game back then. Just look at Bradshaw's or Stabler's stats. Hell, even Elway's stats, yrs later, can not be compared.

So that's just silly.

I didn't list Stafford's stats as a comparison.

I merely listed Jones stats for fun.

You posted a picture of Georgia Frontiere with Bert Jones (she got her guy)

I posted a picture of Stan Kroenke with Matthew Stafford next to him and said (he got his guy)

If that was silly, you can sign me up for silly 7 days a week.

Enlighten us again why you posted Bert Jones with Georgia Frontiere?

What does that have to do with the Kroenke signing off on today's Rams acquiring Stafford in 2021?

What was the comparison of your picture?

I'm pretty sure most of us that are old enough to know both QB's and owners along with how it was different game for QB stats back then can draw the dots Philly.

If you don't follow that logic, more power to you.

I appreciate your conviction but don't call my post silly as if I'm a Stafford homer and I'm completely naïve of how QB stats have evolved over the last 40 plus years.

​

 

[Memphis Ram]

I agree that trading first rounds picks for a proven experienced qb may make sense. But if it doesn't work out, the picks will be missed.

First round draft picks are valuable. To me the notion that they don't matter is wishful thinking, not reality.

When you're pinning your hopes to get good players on picks at 53, 57, 89, etc., it is clear that having first round picks at say 27 or 28 give you far more choices to get elite athletes and/or more proven or even just healthier players.

This is especially the case if you think, as I do, that the Rams are more astute at drafting than many other teams. They're not wasting their choices-- if they were, they would be wasting them even more picking in the 50's with fewer choices on the table.

And you can't have it both ways and say they would whiff at 28 and instead hit at 58. On the contrary, picking higher at minimum gives you more options to take proven and better players. It also gives you more options to get a player you want at a position you need.

Put it this way-- if the Rams had the future first round picks they have traded away, would they have put them to good use? Of course they would. Would they have picked the same players they picked with lower draft picks? It's a hypothetical, but I doubt it. And if so, they could have instead traded down to get more picks.

Just as the Rams would have signed 2 or 3 more impact players right now, for this season, to make a championship run in 2021, if they weren't out of cap space.

But no one said first round picks don't matter. I just pointed out that they aren't guaranteed hits.
No one said anything about whiffing in the 1st round and hitting in 2nd round. That's just more straw.

And it's the Rams who, by their moves, have shown us what they think of these selections and the talent pool they expected to be available. This organization, who you are so sure would have put those picks to good use if they kept them, believe that they have put them to good use via the trades by obtaining quality proven talent over maybes. Not just someone who plays the same position.

And you really don't know if the Rams could have signed 2 or 3 more impact players right now. Again, teams needs don't influency player availability and there are 31 others teams competing for talent. At least I hope you don't believe that the Rams can sign every player they want to obtain or that everyone wants to play for the Rams.

 

[Memphis Ram]

Again we are seeing a swap of QBs. One who never got any credit for winning a hell of a lot of football games, who was traded for a QB that rarely elevated his team, let alone winning many football games, yet never got any blame. So yes it will be interesting to see how those narratives hold up or maybe they explode.

Goff never got any credit??
Stafford never got any blame??
Wow.

Yeah, it's time to end this thread.

I guess the easiest way would be not to respond, but I have to admit that I'm just tickled.

 

[bubbaramfan]

I don't respond to Idiot logic.

 

[FrantikRam]

I agree that trading first rounds picks for a proven experienced qb may make sense. But if it doesn't work out, the picks will be missed.

First round draft picks are valuable. To me the notion that they don't matter is wishful thinking, not reality.

When you're pinning your hopes to get good players on picks at 53, 57, 89, etc., it is clear that having first round picks at say 27 or 28 give you far more choices to get elite athletes and/or more proven or even just healthier players.

This is especially the case if you think, as I do, that the Rams are more astute at drafting than many other teams. They're not wasting their choices-- if they were, they would be wasting them even more picking in the 50's with fewer choices on the table.

And you can't have it both ways and say they would whiff at 28 and instead hit at 58. On the contrary, picking higher at minimum gives you more options to take proven and better players. It also gives you more options to get a player you want at a position you need.

Put it this way-- if the Rams had the future first round picks they have traded away, would they have put them to good use? Of course they would. Would they have picked the same players they picked with lower draft picks? It's a hypothetical, but I doubt it. And if so, they could have instead traded down to get more picks.

Just as the Rams would have signed 2 or 3 more impact players right now, for this season, to make a championship run in 2021, if they weren't out of cap space.

Anyone who believes that if it doesn't work out, the picks will be missed - probably should have started a thread to lament the missed first round pick for the Brandin Cooks trade.

 

[bubbaramfan]

Stafford can't win with a shitty team around him, Goff went to a SB despite his lack of football IQ and a great supporting cast, so its a bad trade.

Idiot logic.

 

[baconandbread]

I feel we definitely upgraded, so the trade is already worth it in my eyes. As for expectations, McVay says Super Bowl which has to be their mindset. As only one team can win it, my expectation is the playoffs this year (Akers would have improved those chances imo) and win another Superbowl in our prime window.

 

[Faceplant]

Let's be honest. For some people, nothing short of Stafford marrying their daughter/sister/etc is ever going to ease the apparently terrible burn of that trade. I really don't think it is even about the picks. It's about a sore ass....

 

[Merlin]

Whether the disregard for high picks is a sustainable approach is a great conversation. I'm still not sure it's gonna be sustainable and we're how many years into this now.

The prob is that as soon as a QB is involved in said conversation people act like someone shot their dog. People need to quit getting so fucking butthurt about QB. Or act the same way with every position. They have feelings too.

 

[Loyal]

I agree that trading first rounds picks for a proven experienced qb may make sense. But if it doesn't work out, the picks will be missed.

First round draft picks are valuable. To me the notion that they don't matter is wishful thinking, not reality.

When you're pinning your hopes to get good players on picks at 53, 57, 89, etc., it is clear that having first round picks at say 27 or 28 give you far more choices to get elite athletes and/or more proven or even just healthier players.

This is especially the case if you think, as I do, that the Rams are more astute at drafting than many other teams. They're not wasting their choices-- if they were, they would be wasting them even more picking in the 50's with fewer choices on the table.

And you can't have it both ways and say they would whiff at 28 and instead hit at 58. On the contrary, picking higher at minimum gives you more options to take proven and better players. It also gives you more options to get a player you want at a position you need.

Put it this way-- if the Rams had the future first round picks they have traded away, would they have put them to good use? Of course they would. Would they have picked the same players they picked with lower draft picks? It's a hypothetical, but I doubt it. And if so, they could have instead traded down to get more picks.

Just as the Rams would have signed 2 or 3 more impact players right now, for this season, to make a championship run in 2021, if they weren't out of cap space.

That's all well and good, but the hypothetical was why did we waste all of that draft capital for an aging QB, when we had this young QB stud? I proved, pages ago, that the bust rate for getting a QB in the lower half of the first round since 2000 is insanely high. Other good players can be had in the 20-32 range, but that's not what we are talking about in [arrticular, it's all about getting an upgrade at QB, the most important position on the field. Those who liked the trade for picks and the unnamed QB is that we are suddenly better with a much higher capability with Matthew Stafford. The McVay-traded QB combo had been figured out by the NFL's top defenses, but will the McVay-Stafford combo be figured out? I don't think it will until after we win a Super Bowl or two. Draft capital means bumpkus unless the top spot is fixed, and now hopefully it is. Guarantee? Hell no, but at least we are dreaming higher than just being very good and second best.

 

[BC Ramfan]

Here's my take on this subject:
1) The word came down from Stan to make a BIG push for the SB in LA this year.
2) Donald and Ramsay in their primes won't last forever.
3) 49ers if healthy are just as good as us. Seattle not far behind.
4) Rams lost talent this offseason, Staley not least. Gotta make up for it.
5) Jared, despite his talents, did not satisfy McVay re learning speed.
6) McVay loved Stafford's film. I trust his eye 100%, IMO few if any are better.
7) They have confidence in their drafting and analytics.
8) If Stafford is who McVay and I think he is, this is gonna be a fun year.
9) Loss of Akers is gonna hurt. Hendy isn't as good at making something out of nothing. We need somebody better for the O to really click.

I can't agree that the Stafford trade is a failure if we don't win the Super Bowl. We're good, really good. Tampa is better. KC is better. There are 10 teams good enough to go all the way, you need some good fortune to survive the gauntlet.

I would say that the trade is a failure only if the change doesn't significantly increase our CHANCES to win the SB over the next few years. There is a future cost to be paid for sure. IMO it clearly does. But if we're good enough to win it all but things don't end up going our way, that doesn't mean the trade was a mistake.

BC

 

[Merlin]

I can't agree that the Stafford trade is a failure if we don't win the Super Bowl. We're good, really good. Tampa is better. KC is better. There are 10 teams good enough to go all the way, you need some good fortune to survive the gauntlet.

I'm not afraid of either of those teams. We beat Tampa last year and I like our chances heads-up against them in the playoffs. KC doesn't scare me either. Rams should be squarely in that top group, barring a complete disintegration on defense. Bring it.

 

[PhillyRam]

Amazing how simply questioing a trade and pointing out that it was in fact a big gamble, stirs up such vitriol.

 

[bubbaramfan]

by you

 

[FarNorth]

Anyone who believes that if it doesn't work out, the picks will be missed - probably should have started a thread to lament the missed first round pick for the Brandin Cooks trade.

More accurate to say the picks will be missed whether the trade works out or not.

 

[FarNorth]

That's all well and good, but the hypothetical was why did we waste all of that draft capital for an aging QB, when we had this young QB stud? I proved, pages ago, that the bust rate for getting a QB in the lower half of the first round since 2000 is insanely high. Other good players can be had in the 20-32 range, but that's not what we are talking about in [arrticular, it's all about getting an upgrade at QB, the most important position on the field. Those who liked the trade for picks and the unnamed QB is that we are suddenly better with a much higher capability with Matthew Stafford. The McVay-traded QB combo had been figured out by the NFL's top defenses, but will the McVay-Stafford combo be figured out? I don't think it will until after we win a Super Bowl or two. Draft capital means bumpkus unless the top spot is fixed, and now hopefully it is. Guarantee? Hell no, but at least we are dreaming higher than just being very good and second best.

I agree. I just got tired of the refrain that first round draft picks don't matter. They do-- but as you say not as much as having the right qb.

The McVay-traded QB combo had been figured out by the NFL's top defenses, but will the McVay-Stafford combo be figured out? I don't think it will until after we win a Super Bowl or two.

This is really a key observation imo. In my view McVay's system with the 11 will still work, but only if the offense has enough talent.

It worked when we were loaded with playmakers (Gurley, Kupp, Woods, Cooks), speed (Gurley, Cooks) and at the offensive line (Saffold and Sullivan.) In particular, with this kind of talent at both RB and WR McVay's deception scheme of identical formations for run and pass created almost unstoppable play action opportunities.

It didn't work in 2019 and 2020 when the RB position was sidetracked by injury, when we had no playmakers with real speed, and the offensive line wasn't good enough (lost personnel, Blythe at center, injuries to Whitworth and Havenstein, and young players still rounding into shape.) Goff struggled and McVay couldn't get the juice out of the offense that he wanted in the form of explosives.

Now we have Stafford, who should be quicker at reads and throws, a lot more speed starting with DJax and including Tutu, Harris, and Funk, and what should should be be a better o-line with our former center replaced, Whitworth and Havenstein healthy, and more experience all around. But we've lost our all future pro bowl running back Akers, who could run multiple options, catch the ball, and break plays downfield.

Will the play action work with Henderson and company? I don't know. If not, Stafford and the o-line will have a tougher time throwing from more predictable situations against D formations stacked to stop the pass. Losing Akers hurts.

 

[nighttrain]

I agree. I just got tired of the refrain that first round draft picks don't matter. They do-- but as you say not as much as having the right qb.

This is really a key observation imo. In my view McVay's system with the 11 will still work, but only if the offense has enough talent.

It worked when we were loaded with playmakers (Gurley, Kupp, Woods, Cooks), speed (Gurley, Cooks) and at the offensive line (Saffold and Sullivan.) In particular, with this kind of talent at both RB and WR McVay's deception scheme of identical formations for run and pass created almost unstoppable play action opportunities.

It didn't work in 2019 and 2020 when the RB position was sidetracked by injury, when we had no playmakers with real speed, and the offensive line wasn't good enough (lost personnel, Blythe at center, injuries to Whitworth and Havenstein, and young players still rounding into shape.) Goff struggled and McVay couldn't get the juice out of the offense that he wanted in the form of explosives.

Now we have Stafford, who should be quicker at reads and throws, a lot more speed starting with DJax and including Tutu, Harris, and Funk, and what should should be be a better o-line with our former center replaced, Whitworth and Havenstein healthy, and more experience all around. But we've lost our all future pro bowl running back Akers, who could run multiple options, catch the ball, and break plays downfield.

Will the play action work with Henderson and company? I don't know. If not, Stafford, the o-line and and the passing game will have a tougher time throwing from more predictable situations against D formations stacked to stop the pass. Losing Akers hurts.

Rams vitally need the running attack to function for Stafford to succeed, without a run game every opponent will come at him with a full on blitz every play, i see difficulty ahead if Funk/Henderson can not provide at least an average run offense
train

 

[Mojo Ram]

Now we have Stafford, who should be quicker at reads and throws

Mr North...in your opinion, does that description really define for yourself how much the Rams have upgraded the position?

 

[Memphis Ram]

I agree. I just got tired of the refrain that first round draft picks don't matter.

Which is something I don't recall anyone ever saying.

 

[Faceplant]

Amazing how simply questioing a trade and pointing out that it was in fact a big gamble, stirs up such vitriol.

Come on bro. Do we need to count posts in this thread? Get on board baby. Let's have some fun my friend!! The time for debate is looooong over. Time for some optimism and good will!! Let's gooooo!!!!