Rams Lions big trade

[Forthewin]

Its the 2022 and 2023 first round picks plus 2021 3rd. Ooooooor just wait the off season out and let the thumb heal. Tough call. Someone needs fired

Fired for consistent success? Yep, seems to be a common theme on the forum here.

Staff have been fired for much less. A lot of jobs could be on the line for this trade

 

[chris98251]

Its the 2022 and 2023 first round picks plus 2021 3rd. Ooooooor just wait the off season out and let the thumb heal. Tough call. Someone needs fired

Fired for consistent success? Yep, seems to be a common theme on the forum here.

Staff have been fired for much less. A lot of jobs could be on the line for this trade

Rams are shooting for the Moon, why they made the Ramsey Trade also, new Stadium, new location, chances for a Super Bowl on the line now.

If they can win one now the trade will be Hershel Walker opinion success, failure and yes they will be looking for a blame guy.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Its the 2022 and 2023 first round picks plus 2021 3rd. Ooooooor just wait the off season out and let the thumb heal. Tough call. Someone needs fired

Fired for consistent success? Yep, seems to be a common theme on the forum here.

Staff have been fired for much less. A lot of jobs could be on the line for this trade

It'd be an absurd firing for completely arbitrary reasons. The Rams have gotten it done for years without high picks. If they can keep doing that, it makes sense to leverage the higher picks they haven't needed for proven talent, especially at a transformative position.

 

[Forthewin]

Its the 2022 and 2023 first round picks plus 2021 3rd. Ooooooor just wait the off season out and let the thumb heal. Tough call. Someone needs fired

Fired for consistent success? Yep, seems to be a common theme on the forum here.

Staff have been fired for much less. A lot of jobs could be on the line for this trade

It'd be an absurd firing for completely arbitrary reasons. The Rams have gotten it done for years without high picks. If they can keep doing that, it makes sense to leverage the higher picks they haven't needed for proven talent, especially at a transformative position.

7 years without a 1st round pick and ZERO Super Bowl championships to show for it.

Rams staff: Boss, we once took 2nd, can I keep my job?
Boss: No.

 

[Palmegranite]

Poor Goff. He'll need to stock up on his antidepressants.
Lions haven't won a playoff game in 30 years.

 

[chris98251]

Better to increase his insurance, Stafford has been pounded pretty much every year.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Fired for consistent success? Yep, seems to be a common theme on the forum here.

Staff have been fired for much less. A lot of jobs could be on the line for this trade

It'd be an absurd firing for completely arbitrary reasons. The Rams have gotten it done for years without high picks. If they can keep doing that, it makes sense to leverage the higher picks they haven't needed for proven talent, especially at a transformative position.

7 years without a 1st round pick and ZERO Super Bowl championships to show for it.

Rams staff: Boss, we once took 2nd, can I keep my job?
Boss: No.

Oh, please. They're consistently good and won a playoff game this year after getting to the Super Bowl in 2018, and you're saying they should be fired because they didn't take players high enough in the draft despite still drafting well overall. It is beyond ludicrous.

 

[Fanatics]

Those talking about 1st round picks, not like we ever use ours anyway. Now we should be praying the 49ers don't get Watson.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Forthewin]

Staff have been fired for much less. A lot of jobs could be on the line for this trade

It'd be an absurd firing for completely arbitrary reasons. The Rams have gotten it done for years without high picks. If they can keep doing that, it makes sense to leverage the higher picks they haven't needed for proven talent, especially at a transformative position.

7 years without a 1st round pick and ZERO Super Bowl championships to show for it.

Rams staff: Boss, we once took 2nd, can I keep my job?
Boss: No.

Oh, please. They're consistently good and won a playoff game this year after getting to the Super Bowl in 2018, and you're saying they should be fired because they didn't take players high enough in the draft despite still drafting well overall. It is beyond ludicrous.

I hear a bunch of above average results in that post...Do you think that was the Rams staff's sales pitch to the owner for giving up 1st round draft picks?

Rams staff: Boss, we want to give up 7 years of 1st round draft picks.
Boss: For what?
Rams staff: To be above average.
Boss: Any plans for a Super Bowl win in that wild plan?
Rams staff: HAHAHA, No.
Boss: FIRED!!

So ask yourself, how long would you put up with a failed strategy?

 

[GeekHawk]

Stafford has been the Lions' starting QB for 12 years. They haven't won a single playoff game for 30 years. How good is this guy again? He went 0-16 at least once. Can you fathom RW doing that? Sorry, Stafford is *WAY* over-rated, and it goes back to him being one of the last cap-busting rookie 1st-overall draft picks before the rookie salary cap. And one of the two major reasons for a rookie salary cap at all.

 

[RedAlice]

Stafford is like 80. How desperate were the Rams? 2 first rounders and a 3rd???? This is great news for the Hawks! A healthy Goff = Stafford...minus 3 high end draft picks...Thank you!!!

Stafford and Russ are both 32.

Lulz.

 

[Maelstrom787]

It'd be an absurd firing for completely arbitrary reasons. The Rams have gotten it done for years without high picks. If they can keep doing that, it makes sense to leverage the higher picks they haven't needed for proven talent, especially at a transformative position.

7 years without a 1st round pick and ZERO Super Bowl championships to show for it.

Rams staff: Boss, we once took 2nd, can I keep my job?
Boss: No.

Oh, please. They're consistently good and won a playoff game this year after getting to the Super Bowl in 2018, and you're saying they should be fired because they didn't take players high enough in the draft despite still drafting well overall. It is beyond ludicrous.

I hear a bunch of above average results in that post...Do you think that was the Rams staff's sales pitch to the owner for giving up 1st round draft picks?

Rams staff: Boss, we want to give up 7 years of 1st round draft picks.
Boss: For what?
Rams staff: To be above average.
Boss: Any plans for a Super Bowl win in that wild plan?
Rams staff: HAHAHA, No.
Boss: FIRED!!

So ask yourself, how long would you put up with a failed strategy?

You certainly have a wacky idea of what "failure" is in a league of relative parity. Sustained winning is absurdly difficult in the NFL.

You also have a wacky idea of "giving up" first round picks. They're not losing them, they're trading them. For players of a proven caliber. You know why they're trading them? Because late first rounders are inherently overvalued, especially for a team that has drafted so well in the middle and late rounds that it hasn't even slowed them down.

So, yeah. It'd be a stupid firing. A really, really stupid firing based on an ultimately meaningless "b-but... they don't pick high enough so they must be bad!"

 

[Maulbert]

Stafford is like 80. How desperate were the Rams? 2 first rounders and a 3rd???? This is great news for the Hawks! A healthy Goff = Stafford...minus 3 high end draft picks...Thank you!!!

Stafford and Russ are both 32.

Lulz.

Russ has only 15 fewer TD passes in 3 fewer seasons. Oh, and A LOT more playoff wins.

 

[chris98251]

Stafford has been the Lions' starting QB for 12 years. They haven't won a single playoff game for 30 years. How good is this guy again? He went 0-16 at least once. Can you fathom RW doing that? Sorry, Stafford is *WAY* over-rated, and it goes back to him being one of the last cap-busting rookie 1st-overall draft picks before the rookie salary cap. And one of the two major reasons for a rookie salary cap at all.

You have to look at the big picture, Stafford has either not had a running game a defense to support him, or a Coaching Staff that was able to scheme on both sides of the ball, they have also had an abysmal front office and GM.

I think of the Cardinals that went years and years as a inept franchise until they brought in Keim, Bidwells tried to play owner operators and were cheap cheap cheap.

Detroit has not always been cheap but inept in assembly of a team and coaching.

 

[Forthewin]

7 years without a 1st round pick and ZERO Super Bowl championships to show for it.

Rams staff: Boss, we once took 2nd, can I keep my job?
Boss: No.

Oh, please. They're consistently good and won a playoff game this year after getting to the Super Bowl in 2018, and you're saying they should be fired because they didn't take players high enough in the draft despite still drafting well overall. It is beyond ludicrous.

I hear a bunch of above average results in that post...Do you think that was the Rams staff's sales pitch to the owner for giving up 1st round draft picks?

Rams staff: Boss, we want to give up 7 years of 1st round draft picks.
Boss: For what?
Rams staff: To be above average.
Boss: Any plans for a Super Bowl win in that wild plan?
Rams staff: HAHAHA, No.
Boss: FIRED!!

So ask yourself, how long would you put up with a failed strategy?

You certainly have a wacky idea of what "failure" is in a league of relative parity. Sustained winning is absurdly difficult in the NFL.

You also have a wacky idea of "giving up" first round picks. They're not losing them, they're trading them. For players of a proven caliber. You know why they're trading them? Because late first rounders are inherently overvalued, especially for a team that has drafted so well in the middle and late rounds that it hasn't even slowed them down.

So, yeah. It'd be a stupid firing. A really, really stupid firing based on an ultimately meaningless "b-but... they don't pick high enough so they must be bad!"

I have the exact "idea" of what success and failure is as all 32 team's Coaches and GMs do. Find me 1 quote from a non Super Bowl winning team staff member saying "Our team was a success this year"...Just 1.

Why can't you find it? Because its Super Bowl or bust in the NFL.

So, old question and new question...
1) Knowing the only acceptable outcome is a Super Bowl win...How many years would you put up with staff that is not producing an acceptable outcome?

2) If you were the Rams, would you have made this trade?

 

[Maelstrom787]

Oh, please. They're consistently good and won a playoff game this year after getting to the Super Bowl in 2018, and you're saying they should be fired because they didn't take players high enough in the draft despite still drafting well overall. It is beyond ludicrous.

I hear a bunch of above average results in that post...Do you think that was the Rams staff's sales pitch to the owner for giving up 1st round draft picks?

Rams staff: Boss, we want to give up 7 years of 1st round draft picks.
Boss: For what?
Rams staff: To be above average.
Boss: Any plans for a Super Bowl win in that wild plan?
Rams staff: HAHAHA, No.
Boss: FIRED!!

So ask yourself, how long would you put up with a failed strategy?

You certainly have a wacky idea of what "failure" is in a league of relative parity. Sustained winning is absurdly difficult in the NFL.

You also have a wacky idea of "giving up" first round picks. They're not losing them, they're trading them. For players of a proven caliber. You know why they're trading them? Because late first rounders are inherently overvalued, especially for a team that has drafted so well in the middle and late rounds that it hasn't even slowed them down.

So, yeah. It'd be a stupid firing. A really, really stupid firing based on an ultimately meaningless "b-but... they don't pick high enough so they must be bad!"

I have the exact "idea" of what success and failure is as all 32 team's Coaches and GMs do. Find me 1 quote from a non Super Bowl winning team staff member saying "Our team was a success this year"...Just 1.

Why can't you find it? Because its Super Bowl or bust in the NFL.

So, old question and new question...
1) Knowing the only acceptable outcome is a Super Bowl win...How many years would you put up with staff that is not producing an acceptable outcome?

2) If you were the Rams, would you have made this trade?

1. That's not the only acceptable outcome. It's the only acceptable goal. Big difference, pal. Which, by the way, a significantly better quarterback helps them achieve more than Jared Goff and 2 late firsts would. Firing a coaching staff and front office that has put together a team that consistently looks good in one of the best divisions in football is a good way to get a lot worse, not a lot better. Face facts: 1 team out of 32 can win the championship each year. A team that's getting to the postseason consistently is a team that's succeeding at getting in position to win.

2. If it was the only way to get Goff's salary at least somewhat taken care of, then yes. 100%. Upgrade at QB and get rid of that ball and chain? That's a win. My front office consistently is filling my roster with talent in the middle and late rounds, I don't NEED those late firsts as much as I NEED a proven top-10 quarterback and cap relief. And have fun getting a top-10 quarterback in the late first. Doesn't happen very often. Their mistake was signing Goff to begin with, and this is them fixing that mistake in an acceptable fashion.

Unless Stafford immediately regresses a large amount, the Rams are gonna keep fighting for championships too.

 

[Forthewin]

I hear a bunch of above average results in that post...Do you think that was the Rams staff's sales pitch to the owner for giving up 1st round draft picks?

Rams staff: Boss, we want to give up 7 years of 1st round draft picks.
Boss: For what?
Rams staff: To be above average.
Boss: Any plans for a Super Bowl win in that wild plan?
Rams staff: HAHAHA, No.
Boss: FIRED!!

So ask yourself, how long would you put up with a failed strategy?

You certainly have a wacky idea of what "failure" is in a league of relative parity. Sustained winning is absurdly difficult in the NFL.

You also have a wacky idea of "giving up" first round picks. They're not losing them, they're trading them. For players of a proven caliber. You know why they're trading them? Because late first rounders are inherently overvalued, especially for a team that has drafted so well in the middle and late rounds that it hasn't even slowed them down.

So, yeah. It'd be a stupid firing. A really, really stupid firing based on an ultimately meaningless "b-but... they don't pick high enough so they must be bad!"

I have the exact "idea" of what success and failure is as all 32 team's Coaches and GMs do. Find me 1 quote from a non Super Bowl winning team staff member saying "Our team was a success this year"...Just 1.

Why can't you find it? Because its Super Bowl or bust in the NFL.

So, old question and new question...
1) Knowing the only acceptable outcome is a Super Bowl win...How many years would you put up with staff that is not producing an acceptable outcome?

2) If you were the Rams, would you have made this trade?

1. That's not the only acceptable outcome. It's the only acceptable goal. Big difference, pal. Which, by the way, a significantly better quarterback helps them achieve more than Jared Goff and 2 late firsts would. Firing a coaching staff and front office that has put together a team that consistently looks good in one of the best divisions in football is a good way to get a lot worse, not a lot better. Face facts: 1 team out of 32 can win the championship each year. A team that's getting to the postseason consistently is a team that's succeeding at getting in position to win.

2. If it was the only way to get Goff's salary at least somewhat taken care of, then yes. 100%. Upgrade at QB and get rid of that ball and chain? That's a win. My front office consistently is filling my roster with talent in the middle and late rounds, I don't NEED those late firsts as much as I NEED a proven top-10 quarterback and cap relief. And have fun getting a top-10 quarterback in the late first. Doesn't happen very often. Their mistake was signing Goff to begin with, and this is them fixing that mistake in an acceptable fashion.

Unless Stafford immediately regresses a large amount, the Rams are gonna keep fighting for championships too.

Can you give me a quote from anyone in the NFL saying "An acceptable outcome is having a goal of winning the Super Bowl"?

I mean a 5 year old can say, "My goal is to win the Super Bowl". Then lets say the kid never wins a Super Bowl....should he be given a GM position...because Hey, he matched what was an acceptable outcome...he had a goal to win the Super Bowl.

Thats just dumb, Winning the Super Bowl is the only acceptable outcome...pal.

 

[Maelstrom787]

You certainly have a wacky idea of what "failure" is in a league of relative parity. Sustained winning is absurdly difficult in the NFL.

You also have a wacky idea of "giving up" first round picks. They're not losing them, they're trading them. For players of a proven caliber. You know why they're trading them? Because late first rounders are inherently overvalued, especially for a team that has drafted so well in the middle and late rounds that it hasn't even slowed them down.

So, yeah. It'd be a stupid firing. A really, really stupid firing based on an ultimately meaningless "b-but... they don't pick high enough so they must be bad!"

I have the exact "idea" of what success and failure is as all 32 team's Coaches and GMs do. Find me 1 quote from a non Super Bowl winning team staff member saying "Our team was a success this year"...Just 1.

Why can't you find it? Because its Super Bowl or bust in the NFL.

So, old question and new question...
1) Knowing the only acceptable outcome is a Super Bowl win...How many years would you put up with staff that is not producing an acceptable outcome?

2) If you were the Rams, would you have made this trade?

1. That's not the only acceptable outcome. It's the only acceptable goal. Big difference, pal. Which, by the way, a significantly better quarterback helps them achieve more than Jared Goff and 2 late firsts would. Firing a coaching staff and front office that has put together a team that consistently looks good in one of the best divisions in football is a good way to get a lot worse, not a lot better. Face facts: 1 team out of 32 can win the championship each year. A team that's getting to the postseason consistently is a team that's succeeding at getting in position to win.

2. If it was the only way to get Goff's salary at least somewhat taken care of, then yes. 100%. Upgrade at QB and get rid of that ball and chain? That's a win. My front office consistently is filling my roster with talent in the middle and late rounds, I don't NEED those late firsts as much as I NEED a proven top-10 quarterback and cap relief. And have fun getting a top-10 quarterback in the late first. Doesn't happen very often. Their mistake was signing Goff to begin with, and this is them fixing that mistake in an acceptable fashion.

Unless Stafford immediately regresses a large amount, the Rams are gonna keep fighting for championships too.

Can you give me a quote from anyone in the NFL saying "An acceptable outcome is having a goal of winning the Super Bowl"?

I mean a 5 year old can say, "My goal is to win the Super Bowl". Then lets say the kid never wins a Super Bowl....should he be given a GM position...because Hey, he matched what was an acceptable outcome...he had a goal to win the Super Bowl.

Thats just dumb, Winning the Super Bowl is the only acceptable outcome...pal.

I guess 31 teams should clean house every year by your logic, then. Absolutely genius. Great job coming up with such an astounding, realistic philosophy.

 

[Maelstrom787]

You certainly have a wacky idea of what "failure" is in a league of relative parity. Sustained winning is absurdly difficult in the NFL.

You also have a wacky idea of "giving up" first round picks. They're not losing them, they're trading them. For players of a proven caliber. You know why they're trading them? Because late first rounders are inherently overvalued, especially for a team that has drafted so well in the middle and late rounds that it hasn't even slowed them down.

So, yeah. It'd be a stupid firing. A really, really stupid firing based on an ultimately meaningless "b-but... they don't pick high enough so they must be bad!"

I have the exact "idea" of what success and failure is as all 32 team's Coaches and GMs do. Find me 1 quote from a non Super Bowl winning team staff member saying "Our team was a success this year"...Just 1.

Why can't you find it? Because its Super Bowl or bust in the NFL.

So, old question and new question...
1) Knowing the only acceptable outcome is a Super Bowl win...How many years would you put up with staff that is not producing an acceptable outcome?

2) If you were the Rams, would you have made this trade?

1. That's not the only acceptable outcome. It's the only acceptable goal. Big difference, pal. Which, by the way, a significantly better quarterback helps them achieve more than Jared Goff and 2 late firsts would. Firing a coaching staff and front office that has put together a team that consistently looks good in one of the best divisions in football is a good way to get a lot worse, not a lot better. Face facts: 1 team out of 32 can win the championship each year. A team that's getting to the postseason consistently is a team that's succeeding at getting in position to win.

2. If it was the only way to get Goff's salary at least somewhat taken care of, then yes. 100%. Upgrade at QB and get rid of that ball and chain? That's a win. My front office consistently is filling my roster with talent in the middle and late rounds, I don't NEED those late firsts as much as I NEED a proven top-10 quarterback and cap relief. And have fun getting a top-10 quarterback in the late first. Doesn't happen very often. Their mistake was signing Goff to begin with, and this is them fixing that mistake in an acceptable fashion.

Unless Stafford immediately regresses a large amount, the Rams are gonna keep fighting for championships too.

Can you give me a quote from anyone in the NFL saying "An acceptable outcome is having a goal of winning the Super Bowl"?

I mean a 5 year old can say, "My goal is to win the Super Bowl". Then lets say the kid never wins a Super Bowl....should he be given a GM position...because Hey, he matched what was an acceptable outcome...he had a goal to win the Super Bowl.

Thats just dumb, Winning the Super Bowl is the only acceptable outcome...pal.

Here's another quote from you in another thread.

^^^^ Spot on! However I could sleep well just getting to the Super Bowl. What happens, happens at that point. We just found out 10+ wins gets half of the fans calling for massive firings and wanting to ship off the best players. 10+ wins makes for a fun season though.

So, are you lying, or just unsure of what you actually think about the topic?

 

[Forthewin]

I have the exact "idea" of what success and failure is as all 32 team's Coaches and GMs do. Find me 1 quote from a non Super Bowl winning team staff member saying "Our team was a success this year"...Just 1.

Why can't you find it? Because its Super Bowl or bust in the NFL.

So, old question and new question...
1) Knowing the only acceptable outcome is a Super Bowl win...How many years would you put up with staff that is not producing an acceptable outcome?

2) If you were the Rams, would you have made this trade?

1. That's not the only acceptable outcome. It's the only acceptable goal. Big difference, pal. Which, by the way, a significantly better quarterback helps them achieve more than Jared Goff and 2 late firsts would. Firing a coaching staff and front office that has put together a team that consistently looks good in one of the best divisions in football is a good way to get a lot worse, not a lot better. Face facts: 1 team out of 32 can win the championship each year. A team that's getting to the postseason consistently is a team that's succeeding at getting in position to win.

2. If it was the only way to get Goff's salary at least somewhat taken care of, then yes. 100%. Upgrade at QB and get rid of that ball and chain? That's a win. My front office consistently is filling my roster with talent in the middle and late rounds, I don't NEED those late firsts as much as I NEED a proven top-10 quarterback and cap relief. And have fun getting a top-10 quarterback in the late first. Doesn't happen very often. Their mistake was signing Goff to begin with, and this is them fixing that mistake in an acceptable fashion.

Unless Stafford immediately regresses a large amount, the Rams are gonna keep fighting for championships too.

Can you give me a quote from anyone in the NFL saying "An acceptable outcome is having a goal of winning the Super Bowl"?

I mean a 5 year old can say, "My goal is to win the Super Bowl". Then lets say the kid never wins a Super Bowl....should he be given a GM position...because Hey, he matched what was an acceptable outcome...he had a goal to win the Super Bowl.

Thats just dumb, Winning the Super Bowl is the only acceptable outcome...pal.

Here's another quote from you in another thread.

^^^^ Spot on! However I could sleep well just getting to the Super Bowl. What happens, happens at that point. We just found out 10+ wins gets half of the fans calling for massive firings and wanting to ship off the best players. 10+ wins makes for a fun season though.

So, are you lying, or just unsure of what you actually think about the topic?

Neither, I was drunk typing! Its Super Bowl or bust!