Breaking: Lions are trading Matthew Stafford to the Rams in exchange for Jared Goff, two future first-round picks, and a third-round pick. Wow.

How do the Rams even have any picks left to trade?

This doesn’t look good for us

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!!!

Hawks2022 wrote: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 is a lot better than Goff. He has become brittle though.

Makes sense to me. Get a better QB in their prime during Aaron Donald's prime.

Rat wrote:How do the Rams even have any picks left to trade?

Thats why they are future picks

On paper...this is one of the worse trades I've ever seen.

Not good. For us, I mean.

Rat wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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 is a lot better than Goff. He has become brittle though.

Makes sense to me. Get a better QB in their prime during Aaron Donald's prime.

Better? Maybe. But not a lot better.

Rams just threw away their future for a 1-2 year shot...if that. However at least they have time to scout the high schoolers for their next 1st round pick!

Hawks2022 wrote: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.

Hawks2022 wrote:

Rat wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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 is a lot better than Goff. He has become brittle though.

Makes sense to me. Get a better QB in their prime during Aaron Donald's prime.

Better? Maybe. But not a lot better.

Rams just threw away their future for a 1-2 year shot...if that. However at least they have time to scout the high schoolers for their next 1st round pick!

We did the same for Jamal adams how did that work out

TAB420 wrote:On paper...this is one of the worse trades I've ever seen.

Yeah, I think the Hawks are off the hook for trading 2 first rounders for a Safety...even though I like Adams.

Stafford is not old . He seems like he has been in the league forever but he is the same age as as Russ I believe. He is better than Goff although a bit brittle. Seattle might be fighting for third in the division next year.

Rat wrote:How do the Rams even have any picks left to trade?

That's what I was as thinking.

hawksincebirth wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Rat wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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 is a lot better than Goff. He has become brittle though.

Makes sense to me. Get a better QB in their prime during Aaron Donald's prime.

Better? Maybe. But not a lot better.

Rams just threw away their future for a 1-2 year shot...if that. However at least they have time to scout the high schoolers for their next 1st round pick!

We did the same for Jamal adams how did that work out

Adams has yet to hit his prime, Stafford is going into his 12th year. Not to mention the 3rd round pick...oh plus last years starting QB

Hawks2022 wrote:

Rat wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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 is a lot better than Goff. He has become brittle though.

Makes sense to me. Get a better QB in their prime during Aaron Donald's prime.

Better? Maybe. But not a lot better.

Rams just threw away their future for a 1-2 year shot...if that. However at least they have time to scout the high schoolers for their next 1st round pick!

The Rams haven't made a first round pick in 5 years. Hard to say they're necessarily throwing away their future by trading for proven commodities. Sure, this trade lowers their ceiling 5 years down the road, but it significantly raises their floor in the meantime... and they're already a playoff caliber team.

Their mistake was paying Goff in the first place.

Hawks2022 wrote:

hawksincebirth wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Rat wrote:Stafford is a lot better than Goff. He has become brittle though.

Makes sense to me. Get a better QB in their prime during Aaron Donald's prime.

Better? Maybe. But not a lot better.

Rams just threw away their future for a 1-2 year shot...if that. However at least they have time to scout the high schoolers for their next 1st round pick!

We did the same for Jamal adams how did that work out

Adams has yet to hit his prime, Stafford is going into his 12th year. Not to mention the 3rd round pick...oh plus last years starting QB

He’s the same age as Russ. Played 20 more games though. I think the rams got better today. They were already a better team

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

Hawks2022 wrote: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.

hawksincebirth wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

hawksincebirth wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:Better? Maybe. But not a lot better.

Rams just threw away their future for a 1-2 year shot...if that. However at least they have time to scout the high schoolers for their next 1st round pick!

We did the same for Jamal adams how did that work out

Adams has yet to hit his prime, Stafford is going into his 12th year. Not to mention the 3rd round pick...oh plus last years starting QB

He’s the same age as Russ. Played 20 more games though. I think the rams got better today. They were already a better team

Okay, would you take a young developing, playoff winning QB, 2 first rounders and a 3rd for Russ?

Russ is way better btw.

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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.

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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.

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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.

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

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

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:
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.

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

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:
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?

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.

nanomoz wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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.

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:
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!"

RedAlice wrote:

nanomoz wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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.

GeekHawk wrote: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.

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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?

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:
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.

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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.

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:
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.

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:
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.

Hawks2022 wrote:^^^^ 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?

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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.

Hawks2022 wrote:^^^^ 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!

Since 2012...
4th Qtr Comeback -
Stafford: 26
Russell Wilson: 24

Game Winning Drives -
Stafford: 32
Russell Wilson: 31

Stafford is Clutch and the Rams got scary.

The real question will be whether Detroit can get Goff to take a pay-cut when his current contract expires.

ludakrishna wrote:Since 2012...
4th Qtr Comeback -
Stafford: 26
Russell Wilson: 24

Game Winning Drives -
Stafford: 32
Russell Wilson: 31

Stafford is Clutch and the Rams got scary.

And when Andrew luck stopped playing in 2018, he had the same stats as them (17 / 20) etc

What EXACTLY is your point with that meaningless stat


BTW Mathew Stafford has played 21 more games than RW and the same for when he was playing at the same point of his career as AL

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:
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.

Hawks2022 wrote:^^^^ 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!

I'm assuming you're doing the same here, seeing as you're actually implying that 31 front offices should be fired each year.

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote: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.

Hawks2022 wrote:^^^^ 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!

I'm assuming you're doing the same here, seeing as you're actually implying that 31 front offices should be fired each year.

I said "staff". On average each team employs 3729 employees. Plenty of hiring and firing goes on each year for each team. So yes, if one of the expendables keeps leveraging the team's future with no return on investment, not reaching their goal or an unacceptable outcome...then drop the hammer!

I am guessing its the same crack head front office that signed Goff to a crazy contract that put them in this position.

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:

Hawks2022 wrote:

Maelstrom787 wrote:
Here's another quote from you in another thread.



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!

I'm assuming you're doing the same here, seeing as you're actually implying that 31 front offices should be fired each year.

I said "staff". On average each team employs 3729 employees. Plenty of hiring and firing goes on each year for each team. So yes, if one of the expendables keeps leveraging the team's future with no return on investment, not reaching their goal or an unacceptable outcome...then drop the hammer!

I am guessing its the same crack head front office that signed Goff to a crazy contract that put them in this position.

The hell are you on about? You said staff and gave the following scenario:

"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!!"

Who do you think makes these decisions? The scouts? No, it's the front office. Don't try to mislead with shoddy semantics, you meant front office and you know it. As for "no return on investment," this is a team that's had sustained success and reasonably contends each year. If you think firing those individuals will actually improve their chances at success, you're dreaming, bud.

Stafford has had some injury issues.

But there is no circumstance where you can look at this trade and not come to the conclusion that for the next 1-2, if not 3 years - the Rams have a much better chance at a SB than we do.

In fact, right now the favorites for the division have to come down to either the 49ers or the Rams.

Thankfully they massively lowered the bar for reaching the playoffs. In the old format, this trade would have kept us from even MAKING the playoffs...because we would be fighting for a wildcard against a team that was in our own division. A team that was, for the most part, better than us.

But with the lower standards for making the playoffs, The Rams can win the division, the 49ers can get a wildcard, and we can still somehow make the playoffs.

So not a deathknell unless we end up in the playoffs matched up with the Rams, (as they would easily beat us), but not great news nonetheless.

Well word now is they went after Rodgers first, obviously they have a high bar set, Stafford was injured due to a $h!t line and having to stand in the pocket to wait for receivers to get open, guts isn't his issue.

A cleaner pocket and better receivers will add 10 or 20 points to his ratings.

Oh and a running game that's dependable.

McVay is going to be fine since it is his offense, much like Pete is fine with DC's leaving.

He needs guys to coordinate with players and teach.

As long as firsts are as overvalued as they are, the best teams are gonna keep moving them more frequently.

Last year, I went through the 17-32 range in the past 4/5 drafts to evaluate player by player, and confirmed that the hit rate on an above-average starter is about 50%, with the chance of finding a Pro Bowler being 1 in 10. If you can trade those lottery tickets for an actual established Pro Bowler, why the hell not? Good teams have that figured out, and great teams draft well anyway in the later rounds.

Maelstrom787 wrote:

As long as firsts are as overvalued as they are, the best teams are gonna keep moving them more frequently.

Last year, I went through the 17-32 range in the past 4/5 drafts to evaluate player by player, and confirmed that the hit rate on an above-average starter is about 50%, with the chance of finding a Pro Bowler being 1 in 10. If you can trade those lottery tickets for an actual established Pro Bowler, why the hell not? Good teams have that figured out, and great teams draft well anyway in the later rounds.

Wow! Lol established Pro Bowler? Matt went to the Pro Bowl once and that was 10 YEARS AGO! So what happened in that 5th draft that you won't share the info.. Did that mess with the narrative?

Even with flawed info, if its 1 in 10 with 1 pick, its 1 in 5 with 2 picks. Add in that 3rd rounder and maybe 1 in 4 chance of pulling a Pro Bowler.
So the trade went like...

1 old Pro Bowler
For
1 young Pro Bowler + a 1 in 4 chance of another young pro bowler.

No matter how you slice it, this was a bad trade. Unless of course you add in the...

Rams Staff: We sunk the ship with contracts, we gave away 7 first rounders, we have zero Super Bowl wins to show for it...but Boss, at least we were able to get rid of the guy that we asked you to pay a ton of cash to...you are welcome.

Fyi...Rams staff means Rams staff. Yes, scouts are depended on to make evaluations that will heavy in the overall choice...and some need fired.