Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Rams Lions big trade

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics. Ex-Seahawks fall into NFL topics. LANGUAGE: PG-13
Re: Rams Lions big trade
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:12 pm
  • 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.


    That's just bonkers. LOL.

    I get your point, but there is a whole other aspect you are missing...the $$$.

    The reason some of those guys are even available for multiple 1st round picks is that they want huge $$$$. Your solution can give you some great players, but it also means like 40% of your cap is tied up in 2 or 3 players. There is no middle ground. I mean the Rams just gave up more than anyone else because they were trying to OFFLOAD $$$.

    Example: Buckner traded to Indy for 13th pick. In your view, Buckner>Kinlaw: Colts win. Well, in reality, Niners traded down from 13, drafted Kinlaw, and then used capitol from that trade to trade back up from original 1st round pick to take Aiyuk. Now they have both Kinlaw and Aiyuk on rookie deals for 4 years and Buckner is making 20 mil per. Thats cap management.

    The 49ers were in the Mack and OBJ sweepstakes. if they had made either of those deals, they wouldn't now have Nick Bosa or Brandon Aiyuk and would be in the hole on 1st rounders.

    My point is this ain't black and white. My experience is typically fans who like trading 1st rounders are fans of teams that don't have any.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7089
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:30 pm
  • Hawks2022 wrote:
    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.


    I'll just respond point by point here, perhaps not in perfect order.

    1. Bullcrap. You weren't talking about scouts, you were talking about those who make personnel decisions, and scouts are absolutely entirely irrelevant to the fantasy conversation you made. Either you think scouts trade picks, or you're lying. Honestly, lying probably looks better, at this point.

    2. "Sunk the ship?" Bud, I know you might've just started paying attention, but the Rams haven't picked first round in what is about to be 5 drafts, regardless of what contracts they've signed. Do you honestly think this has sunk their ship? They look pretty damn impressive to me. Good thing for LA that you're nowhere near the organization, otherwise you'd be trying your damnedest to go 3-13 after firing a successful staff. Laughable. Do you remember the Rams prior to McVay? Picking high every year? Oh yeah, that was way better for them. They were rolling in wins. All those picks definitely helped them fight for championships. After all, first round draft picks are the only thing that makes a team successful, as proven by the pre-2017 Rams. Might as well hire Jeff Fisher back. Sure, they'll go 7-9 yearly, but at least they'll have those precious picks!

    3. The post you've quoted from me is more aimed at the overall philosophy the Rams (and most other successful teams to a less extreme extent) have followed with first rounders, because that's what the tweet was in reference to. They've traded them for Brandin Cooks and Jalen Ramsey, too... both established Pro Bowlers. The bulk of this trade compensation was likely to offload Goff's salary - which I've criticized multiple times in multiple threads. Bearing the cap relief and the premium valuation of quarterbacks in mind, the trade compensation here is less of a direct trade-off, making it harder to properly evaluate because there are multiple types of compensation involved.

    4. The fifth draft in my referenced post was too recent to evaluate properly, because its players had too few chances to make the Pro Bowl. If I did include it, it would have included less Pro Bowlers, which'd skew the numbers in the favor of the argument I'm making. Fortunately, I try not to be an absolute weasel and aim to find the truth, regardless of what it is. Probably should've taken you about 4 seconds to realize that, but I'm happy to clarify for you as needed. Here's a link if you want to read it yourself and then come back to make another meandering reply that completely misses the point: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=168115

    5. Bad trade? For a top-10 quarterback with years left to go on a team that was a hair away from a Super Bowl a couple years back, and a hair away from a championship game with absolute doodoo at the position this year? At this point, I'm starting to think you value draft picks more than you value actual contention for a championship. The process here is fine, save for the fact they paid Goff to begin with. That was the biggest mistake. Best thing to do here is to offload his salary and get what talent they can at the spot, and Stafford fits the bill. Unless, of course, you have a better alternative. (spoiler alert: you don't.)
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4408
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:33 pm
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    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.


    That's just bonkers. LOL.

    I get your point, but there is a whole other aspect you are missing...the $$$.

    The reason some of those guys are even available for multiple 1st round picks is that they want huge $$$$. Your solution can give you some great players, but it also means like 40% of your cap is tied up in 2 or 3 players. There is no middle ground. I mean the Rams just gave up more than anyone else because they were trying to OFFLOAD $$$.

    Example: Buckner traded to Indy for 13th pick. In your view, Buckner>Kinlaw: Colts win. Well, in reality, Niners traded down from 13, drafted Kinlaw, and then used capitol from that trade to trade back up from original 1st round pick to take Aiyuk. Now they have both Kinlaw and Aiyuk on rookie deals for 4 years and Buckner is making 20 mil per. Thats cap management.

    The 49ers were in the Mack and OBJ sweepstakes. if they had made either of those deals, they wouldn't now have Nick Bosa or Brandon Aiyuk and would be in the hole on 1st rounders.

    My point is this ain't black and white. My experience is typically fans who like trading 1st rounders are fans of teams that don't have any.


    Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.

    Furthermore, the Rams have drafted well above average elsewhere in the draft... so it's not like they're completely forgoing obtaining talent via the draft. Just offloading the inherently overvalued selections for proven talent and cap flexibility, which allows them to largely keep the gang together.
    Last edited by Maelstrom787 on Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4408
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:37 pm
  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    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.


    That's just bonkers. LOL.

    I get your point, but there is a whole other aspect you are missing...the $$$.

    The reason some of those guys are even available for multiple 1st round picks is that they want huge $$$$. Your solution can give you some great players, but it also means like 40% of your cap is tied up in 2 or 3 players. There is no middle ground. I mean the Rams just gave up more than anyone else because they were trying to OFFLOAD $$$.

    Example: Buckner traded to Indy for 13th pick. In your view, Buckner>Kinlaw: Colts win. Well, in reality, Niners traded down from 13, drafted Kinlaw, and then used capitol from that trade to trade back up from original 1st round pick to take Aiyuk. Now they have both Kinlaw and Aiyuk on rookie deals for 4 years and Buckner is making 20 mil per. Thats cap management.

    The 49ers were in the Mack and OBJ sweepstakes. if they had made either of those deals, they wouldn't now have Nick Bosa or Brandon Aiyuk and would be in the hole on 1st rounders.

    My point is this ain't black and white. My experience is typically fans who like trading 1st rounders are fans of teams that don't have any.


    Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.


    Please...the 49ers weren't 6-10 because their starting QB sucked. They were 6-10 because he hardly played, was hurt when he WAS playing, and they had 80 mil of the 200 mil cap on IR.

    Still tho, they managed to sweep the Rams with backup QBs and if they choose to move on and get a better QB, their cap hit is only 2.5 mil. The Rams had to pay extra in draft picks to get rid of their guy. Yup...sounds like a winning plan.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7089
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:42 pm
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    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.


    That's just bonkers. LOL.

    I get your point, but there is a whole other aspect you are missing...the $$$.

    The reason some of those guys are even available for multiple 1st round picks is that they want huge $$$$. Your solution can give you some great players, but it also means like 40% of your cap is tied up in 2 or 3 players. There is no middle ground. I mean the Rams just gave up more than anyone else because they were trying to OFFLOAD $$$.

    Example: Buckner traded to Indy for 13th pick. In your view, Buckner>Kinlaw: Colts win. Well, in reality, Niners traded down from 13, drafted Kinlaw, and then used capitol from that trade to trade back up from original 1st round pick to take Aiyuk. Now they have both Kinlaw and Aiyuk on rookie deals for 4 years and Buckner is making 20 mil per. Thats cap management.

    The 49ers were in the Mack and OBJ sweepstakes. if they had made either of those deals, they wouldn't now have Nick Bosa or Brandon Aiyuk and would be in the hole on 1st rounders.

    My point is this ain't black and white. My experience is typically fans who like trading 1st rounders are fans of teams that don't have any.


    Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.


    Please...the 49ers weren't 6-10 because their starting QB sucked. They were 6-10 because he hardly played, was hurt when he WAS playing, and they had 80 mil of the 200 mil cap on IR.

    Still tho, they managed to sweep the Rams with backup QBs and if they choose to move on and get a better QB, their cap hit is only 2.5 mil. The Rams had to pay extra in draft picks to get rid of their guy. Yup...sounds like a winning plan.


    It probably is a winning plan, considering that they keep winning.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4408
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:43 pm
  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    That's just bonkers. LOL.

    I get your point, but there is a whole other aspect you are missing...the $$$.

    The reason some of those guys are even available for multiple 1st round picks is that they want huge $$$$. Your solution can give you some great players, but it also means like 40% of your cap is tied up in 2 or 3 players. There is no middle ground. I mean the Rams just gave up more than anyone else because they were trying to OFFLOAD $$$.

    Example: Buckner traded to Indy for 13th pick. In your view, Buckner>Kinlaw: Colts win. Well, in reality, Niners traded down from 13, drafted Kinlaw, and then used capitol from that trade to trade back up from original 1st round pick to take Aiyuk. Now they have both Kinlaw and Aiyuk on rookie deals for 4 years and Buckner is making 20 mil per. Thats cap management.

    The 49ers were in the Mack and OBJ sweepstakes. if they had made either of those deals, they wouldn't now have Nick Bosa or Brandon Aiyuk and would be in the hole on 1st rounders.

    My point is this ain't black and white. My experience is typically fans who like trading 1st rounders are fans of teams that don't have any.


    Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.


    Please...the 49ers weren't 6-10 because their starting QB sucked. They were 6-10 because he hardly played, was hurt when he WAS playing, and they had 80 mil of the 200 mil cap on IR.

    Still tho, they managed to sweep the Rams with backup QBs and if they choose to move on and get a better QB, their cap hit is only 2.5 mil. The Rams had to pay extra in draft picks to get rid of their guy. Yup...sounds like a winning plan.


    It probably is a winning plan, considering that they keep winning.


    Sure. We'll see. I mean if it doesn't, they'll have another 1st round pick to trade in 2024.
    Marvin49
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7089
    Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:34 pm


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:47 pm
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.


    Please...the 49ers weren't 6-10 because their starting QB sucked. They were 6-10 because he hardly played, was hurt when he WAS playing, and they had 80 mil of the 200 mil cap on IR.

    Still tho, they managed to sweep the Rams with backup QBs and if they choose to move on and get a better QB, their cap hit is only 2.5 mil. The Rams had to pay extra in draft picks to get rid of their guy. Yup...sounds like a winning plan.


    It probably is a winning plan, considering that they keep winning.


    Sure. We'll see. I mean if it doesn't, they'll have another 1st round pick to trade in 2024.


    Good, they can probably net some real talent for it, and if history repeats, they'll be able to continue reloading with prudent non-premium draft selections. Bird in hand, two in bush, blah blah.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4408
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Mon Feb 01, 2021 6:16 pm
  • Washington Redskins won trading away Draft Picks for years and won.

    Broncos went after Manning and won one also, just not the first time :) .
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 34862
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Mon Feb 01, 2021 8:15 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:Washington Redskins won trading away Draft Picks for years and won.

    Broncos went after Manning and won one also, just not the first time :) .

    I am all for mixing it up, using every tool you have to win a Super Bowl. Drop 3 1st round picks if you think you have the player of the decade...give out the biggest contract ever if you think he is the difference from where you are at VS winning a Super Bowl!

    However if this playing loose and wild style keeps ending up without a Super Bowl win, its time to change strategies!

    Giving up 1 first rounder is one thing, giving up 2 first, a 3rd and starting QB should open the owners eyes that there is a problem.

    Even if part of the deal was to solve a cap issue, maybe the person who created the cap isssue needs to be let go.
    Hawks2022
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 64
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2021 6:05 am


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Mon Feb 01, 2021 9:30 pm
  • Hawks2022 wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:Washington Redskins won trading away Draft Picks for years and won.

    Broncos went after Manning and won one also, just not the first time :) .

    I am all for mixing it up, using every tool you have to win a Super Bowl. Drop 3 1st round picks if you think you have the player of the decade...give out the biggest contract ever if you think he is the difference from where you are at VS winning a Super Bowl!

    However if this playing loose and wild style keeps ending up without a Super Bowl win, its time to change strategies!

    Giving up 1 first rounder is one thing, giving up 2 first, a 3rd and starting QB should open the owners eyes that there is a problem.

    Even if part of the deal was to solve a cap issue, maybe the person who created the cap isssue needs to be let go.


    After all, the team with the most picks and cap space wins the championship every year lol
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4408
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Tue Feb 02, 2021 6:57 am
  • Marvin49 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    Marvin49 wrote:
    Maelstrom787 wrote:
    Yeah, but can we really hold cap management against the Rams when they've found ways to sustain success while handing out money like its candy? If it all falls apart this season, fine, point conceded. Otherwise, good for the Niners that they managed the cap, but there they were, dead last in the division.. where they'll probably stay unless they upgrade the quarterback spot... and they'll probably need to be aggressive to do so.


    Please...the 49ers weren't 6-10 because their starting QB sucked. They were 6-10 because he hardly played, was hurt when he WAS playing, and they had 80 mil of the 200 mil cap on IR.

    Still tho, they managed to sweep the Rams with backup QBs and if they choose to move on and get a better QB, their cap hit is only 2.5 mil. The Rams had to pay extra in draft picks to get rid of their guy. Yup...sounds like a winning plan.


    It probably is a winning plan, considering that they keep winning.


    Sure. We'll see. I mean if it doesn't, they'll have another 1st round pick to trade in 2024.



    What did you think after the Ramsey trade? I remember a similar sentiment. We were 3-3 last year before the trade, 6-4 after, 10-6 this year. I guess if you keep punting on when the Rams will eventually be bad, you'll eventually be right.

    And the Niners are exactly why we got rid of Goff and why we had to. In game one he had a clean pocket, run game was fine, he played terribly. In game two, he turned the ball over three times which included a horrific pick 6.

    What people must be forgetting or not realizing is that Goff was a net negative this year. Even if you only think Stafford is an above average QB, it's a huge swing going from Goff to him.

    The other thing about the first rounders is that we still draft well and were the youngest team in the NFC last year. We will get three comp picks this year and probably three next year.

    Now for next year, we will be losing 4-5 defensive starters and several coaches. Offense should be better, defense will be worse - we will need to add 5 players either via FA (if we can make room) or via the draft. So I'm excited but it's possible we just end up 10-6 again - also depends on what the Niners do at QB
    Ramfan128
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1094
    Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:46 pm


Re: Rams Lions big trade
Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:08 am
  • This trade immediately means the division winner comes down to either 49ers or the Rams.

    That isn't great for the Seahawks.

    We traded 2 1st round picks for a safety. They traded a bit more and got a starting QB.

    The Rams got a QB that immediately removes their greatest weakness and a guy that literally is responsible for at least 2 of their losses a year. Maybe more.

    Trading away 1st round picks makes complete sense. 1st round picks are a CHANCE at a great player. Getting a great player with 100% certainty trumps it. There is no downside but for cap costs and frankly, it isn't like most teams don't squander cap when they have it anyway.

    Better to pay a lot for a great player than to try to get a great player in the draft with only a 30% (if that) likely chance of it.

    The Rams will be fine. In much better shape than us. By the time the Rams do suck, we won't have our HC anyway.

    The Rams already own us. Now they have a better QB. And know that if they face us in the playoffs it will be a cakewalk. This means one of our pathways to any sort of playoffs success is now fraught with peril.

    (Earlier we could at least hope the Rams do not make the playoffs, now we have to pray they don't get matched up against us IF we can scratch our way into the playoffs after the 49ers and Rams get their playoffs slots first)
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4770
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 7:48 pm


Previous


It is currently Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:23 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 56 guests