What will it take to make the Stafford trade worth it in your opinion?
- Thread starter NJRamsFan
- Start date
-
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.
Elmgrovegnome
Legend
It will be worth it to me if I can finally watch a Rams game and not expect a turnover every time the QB touches the ball. It sucks to have no faith in the QB. It almost ruins the pleasure of watching them.
A Super Bowl is the only outcome I'd be happy with.
I don't soley see this from the Team point-of-view.
Stafford is certainly a major key for the Rams' success; and they absolutely made the trade with aspirations for a Super Bowl Championship. However, it's not ALL on the QB's shoulders.
Stafford could be great, and the Rams might not sniff the Super Bowl. Hell, they just lost a key player, and Training Camp has not even started.
If Stafford plays like one of the elite quarterbacks in the NFL, the trade was worth it in my opinion.
If Stafford plays like an elite-QB, the Rams SHOULD be very good ... maybe great ... but the overall Team-success will require a lot more than just elite-play from the Game's most important position.
The best QB in the NFL looked pretty ordinary without his starting OTs against a quality pass-rush/defense in the Super Bowl.
Stafford is certainly a major key for the Rams' success; and they absolutely made the trade with aspirations for a Super Bowl Championship. However, it's not ALL on the QB's shoulders.
Stafford could be great, and the Rams might not sniff the Super Bowl. Hell, they just lost a key player, and Training Camp has not even started.
If Stafford plays like one of the elite quarterbacks in the NFL, the trade was worth it in my opinion.
If Stafford plays like an elite-QB, the Rams SHOULD be very good ... maybe great ... but the overall Team-success will require a lot more than just elite-play from the Game's most important position.
The best QB in the NFL looked pretty ordinary without his starting OTs against a quality pass-rush/defense in the Super Bowl.
SB win in the next 3 yrs and two other deep playoff runs.
May I assume you actually mean a Super Bowl winning outcome?
Sorry. I don't think, nor do I believe I suggested anything was drastically misrepresented. I'll go now.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
No worries dude sometimes it’s hard to tell via message board how things are meant. I might have read too much into the bold font. But I was sincerely not trying to overstate Goff’s play in anywaySorry. I don't think, nor do I believe I suggested anything was drastically misrepresented. I'll go now.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry for not being specific, haha.
(On another note, we need a blush emoji for mistakes.)
Agreed but QB shouldn't add to a teams problem with poor play. Thankfully with Matthew Stafford that shouldn't happen.
I picked other - the offense has to be better, that's it for me.
However, I'm only saying that because every move a team makes when they're already good is a failure if you don't make or win the Super Bowl.
In 2017 we were statistically one of the best teams in the league even though we didn't win a playoff game - all the moves - trading for Cooks, Peters, Talib, Fowler, franchise Joyner and signing Suh - all failures because we didn't win it all.
What's especially bizarre to me is that most Rams fans seem more "WIN IT OR ITS A FAILURE" on this trade than we were the Ramsey trade - which is a trade for a CB versus a QB in this scenario. Which is especially puzzling because one of the firsts in that trade came after not even making the playoffs.
Every move we make will be looked at as a failure if we don't win it all. Only added special piece to the Stafford trade for me is that the offense must be better.
However, I'm only saying that because every move a team makes when they're already good is a failure if you don't make or win the Super Bowl.
In 2017 we were statistically one of the best teams in the league even though we didn't win a playoff game - all the moves - trading for Cooks, Peters, Talib, Fowler, franchise Joyner and signing Suh - all failures because we didn't win it all.
What's especially bizarre to me is that most Rams fans seem more "WIN IT OR ITS A FAILURE" on this trade than we were the Ramsey trade - which is a trade for a CB versus a QB in this scenario. Which is especially puzzling because one of the firsts in that trade came after not even making the playoffs.
Every move we make will be looked at as a failure if we don't win it all. Only added special piece to the Stafford trade for me is that the offense must be better.
I checked "other". IMHO the trade was a successful one already. A more talented QB. A more experienced QB. A QB who has the HC's (and offensive architect's) complete confidence. Downside? An older QB who should have many less years remaining than Goff.
But for it to be viewed as "successful" to the masses, he's going to have to win a Superbowl (at some point with the Rams). He doesn't have to be in the MVP running though if things work out with he and McVay, he will be. He'll have big numbers and be a pro bowler. He should out play Goff until Goff gets more experience and turns into Stafford.....older, experienced QB with talent who hasn't won the big game. But like I said, "IMHO, it's already a successful trade".
But for it to be viewed as "successful" to the masses, he's going to have to win a Superbowl (at some point with the Rams). He doesn't have to be in the MVP running though if things work out with he and McVay, he will be. He'll have big numbers and be a pro bowler. He should out play Goff until Goff gets more experience and turns into Stafford.....older, experienced QB with talent who hasn't won the big game. But like I said, "IMHO, it's already a successful trade".
+1----- I now have much higher hopes for the Rams moving forward to the Super Bowl.
It was the right move regardless of the outcome.
Excellent point!
I'm not setting up Stafford or myself for a Super Bowl or Bust scenario.
It's a long way to the Super Bowl. I voted "Other". Trades don't guarantee Super Bowl wins but, can put your team in a better position to win it. That is what trading for Stafford has done for the Rams. The Rams organization has put themselves in a much better place to compete for a Super Bowl win.
My initial reaction before seeing the poll was at least 1 SB victory. But to be fair, if he is in the convo for league MVP than that makes the trade worth it for me.
nighttrain
Legend
and dont even mention the two first rounders gone to Detroit. It will be interesting to see if Holmes, who is very familiar with Goff sticks with him, or trades up to take a new QB in next years Draft.....
train
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #38
Don't you think that is a silly stance to take? I mean to play devils advocate for example, if Stafford regresses majorly for some reason and Goff turns his career around and goes on to win 3 SB MVP's that would make it the wrong move wouldn't it?
Not saying this is what's going to happen just don't understand how you can blindly say no matter what happens it was the right move.
Obviously, I don't think I'm taking a silly stance.
The day the Rams made the trade it was the right move IMHO. This is based on what I know and have seen of both Goff and Stafford.
I have to go by the available information I have. So it's not a blind opinion. The Rams nor I have the availability of hindsight.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #40
It's not really hindsight. The thread is asking what does Matthew Stafford need to do or accomplish for you to feel that the trade was a success and your answer is essentially "nothing".
You telling me you think Stafford is superior and it was the right move is fine and I don't necessarily disagree but that does not absolve this move from being bad should things fail. You're basically telling me you agree with the move not what Stafford needs to do to prove it was worth it.
Do you honestly believe that he doesn't need to play at a high level to justify the price we paid simply because at the time it sounded good? I have never heard a take like that before.