2021 NFL off season thread

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Seems like a huge over payment for an aging QB. Sure Stafford is better than Goff but how much can you expect from Stafford going forward? Can you get more than 2, maybe 3 years out of him?

He's 32. He's probably got 5 decent years left

Brees
Brady
Fitzpatrick
Rodgers
Alex smith
Big Ben

All currently 35+.


Other QBs his age
Wilson
Tannehill


Stafford is a good QB. It's not his fault he got drafted by Detroit.

[Sainters7]

That trade means, unless they trade up, Rams won't have a 1st round pick until 2024. The last time the Rams made a 1st round selection was 2016 - Jared Goff.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Stafford > Goff by a margin, the Rams overpaid. But it seemed like a deal was in place with the 49ers, so the Lions forced them to overpay. Great deal by Detroit, and the Rams will look scary next season.

[devo22]

interesting one. Happy for Stafford, although I would have prefered to see him with the Niners. Good for Detroit to squeeze out two 1sts, but taking on Goffs contract is not exactly ideal. Think it makes sense for both teams though. Only loser is Goff here ... trading the Rams for the Lions and LA for Detroit is pretty brutal.

[transplant99]

So if this is what Stafford is worth.....what the hell does Deshaun Watson cost?

[Strange Brew]

Well I’m not a believer in the Rans philosophy of trading away all their first rounders in general, but this is a good deal for them. Losing Goffs contract and getting Stanford are worth the steep price they paid. They can clearly compete for the NFC now.

[Senator Clay Davis]

In the end Goff will be by far the most expensive QB ever in terms of draft capital. It cost two firsts, two seconds and a third to draft him, and it cost two firsts and a third to trade him. This also has no impact on the Deshaun value, Deshaun's contract is actually desirable whereas Goff's was the worst in the league. Even though it was costly for the Rams they are still more likely to win the Super Bowl now and that is ultimately the judge of whether it was worth it. You can't say the Rams aren't trying though even if this backfires. Lots of other fan bases would appreciate this kind of aggressiveness (though they probably still don't care in LA).

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Well I’m not a believer in the Rans philosophy of trading away all their first rounders in general, but this is a good deal for them. Losing Goffs contract and getting Stanford are worth the steep price they paid. They can clearly compete for the NFC now.

They have to win now while Donald and Ramsey are in their prime so it's probably worth it to give up all these 1st round picks. Stafford is a massive upgrade over Goff as McVay will be able to open up his offense.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I wonder if the Lions could even trade Goff again. His contract is bad, but if the Lions can maybe extend him another year and eat a lot of the bad cap portion they should be able to get another second round pick for him. Goff has shown he can be a high end system QB, someone like Indianapolis or New England who likely missed out on Stafford and can't get Watson might have some interest if the cap number was reasonable for a couple years.

[GirlySports]

Great move for the Lions to take the bad contract because either Goff gets the kick in the ass he needs and becomes worth it or the Lions can release him in 2023 with little repercussions financially. If he’s available expect the Lions to draft the BYU QB with the #7 pick and they’ll have the luxury of letting him sit behind Goff for one year. All this for Stafford who wanted to leave anyway.

[Sylvanfan]

I don't see anyone being able to win the Superbowl with Stafford, Matt Ryan or any other non mobile QB not named Brady. The Rams are a bit better but can they add any offensive playmakers to the team now?

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So if this is what Stafford is worth.....what the hell does Deshaun Watson cost?

[transplant99]

According to Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, the Rams “considered making a hard run” at a trade for Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers before eventually agreeing to a deal for Matthew Stafford, but the Packers dismissed the trade inquiries and were “adamant” about not trading the presumptive MVP.

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/202...aaron-rodgers/

[browna]

As I speculated last week, both Stafford and Rodgers seemed like a better fit for a guy like McVey.

Goff has a solid arm but his mobility and mainly I think his smarts/decision making is an issue, and I think a guy like McVey wants more of a cerebral QB than an athlete..and since there are an unique options this offseason that are more available than usual, it's time to take the chance.

Doesn't mean the Rams are going to necessarily be better but the QB and coach will be on more similar pages now.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I don't see anyone being able to win the Superbowl with Stafford, Matt Ryan or any other non mobile QB not named Brady. The Rams are a bit better but can they add any offensive playmakers to the team now?

You don't need mobile QB's to win a Super Bowl. In fact almost all Super Bowls have been won by teams with pocket passers for QB's.

[Senator Clay Davis]

You're confusing mobile with running. Stafford actually has decent mobility so he's definitely not a statue like Brady or Ryan. But part of what has made offense more efficient than ever is that almost every team has a QB who is a threat to run for a first down when needed. Yes you still need a guy who can primarily beat you throwing, but not having your QB be a threat to run is a handicap now.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

You're confusing mobile with running. Stafford actually has decent mobility so he's definitely not a statue like Brady or Ryan. But part of what has made offense more efficient than ever is that almost every team has a QB who is a threat to run for a first down when needed. Yes you still need a guy who can primarily beat you throwing, but not having your QB be a threat to run is a handicap now.

That's fanspeak as every football forum has a lot of vocal fans wishing their QB would run more when the reality is the thing that scares head coaches the most is their QB running for first downs in the open field. The most successful QB's in the Super Bowl era have largely been statues in the pocket as it's because they have the greatest chances of being healthy for a full season year over year. How many games did Brady, Manning (Eli and Payton), Brees, Rivers, Ryan, etc lose to injury? The reality is that QB's that are threats to run have shorter careers but to taking unnecessary hits. Mahomes is a different animal but even he's started to get beat up the past few seasons young into his career.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Look at every single starting QB in the league. How many of them do you look at and think they can't run for a first down on a 3rd and 10? You have maybe 3 or 4 guys and with Rivers gone and Brady almost done it won't be long before there are basically no statues left in the league. You are again assuming I'm thinking of Kyler Murray when even Trubisky is a decent running threat. What worked in the past for winning Super Bowls isn't guaranteed to work in the future, and right now a QB who can generate drive sustaining plays with his legs is almost a necessity in the NFL. Also helps that the QB of today is already a much better athlete than the QB of even 20 years ago.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Look at every single starting QB in the league. How many of them do you look at and think they can't run for a first down on a 3rd and 10? You have maybe 3 or 4 guys and with Rivers gone and Brady almost done it won't be long before there are basically no statues left in the league. You are again assuming I'm thinking of Kyler Murray when even Trubisky is a decent running threat. What worked in the past for winning Super Bowls isn't guaranteed to work in the future, and right now a QB who can generate drive sustaining plays with his legs is almost a necessity in the NFL. Also helps that the QB of today is already a much better athlete than the QB of even 20 years ago.

Nah. It's always going to come down to the ability to make passes from the pocket and ability to stay healthy. Always has and always will. Most running QB's are compromised one way or another in that they either aren't good enough pocket passers or can't stay healthy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

I cannot believe how badly you are missing the point lol. No #### you need a QB who can throw. You also need a QB who is mobile. That's it. Brady is the exception, not the rule, and he also happens to be the greatest QB ever. But if you look at the 32 starting QBs right now and really it's Brady, Ryan and I guess Cousins? But that's it, every other QB is mobile to a degree. Some are more mobile than others, most are just good enough athletes to get out of the pocket and get a first down.