NFL: Stafford to Rams for Two 1st Rd. Picks, One 3rd Rd. Pick, and QB Goff
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I would agree, I think Stafford is probably just outside the top 10. Goff probably around #20.
I think upgrading from 20 to around 12 or so is pretty important for a team thats already in the playoffs, but admittedly may not get them over the top .
Keep in mind that Watson has a no-trade clause. I don't see him agreeing to go to Detroit. If Houston opts to trade Deshaun -- and I think that they will -- it's going to be to one of Watson's approved destinations.
Maybe @Ferm Sheller But right now they have nothing. Not even any offers on the Table. 3 #1s a 2nd and Goff (of a recent SB Appearance) might seem like a good option. Especially to the Texans "Management".
The irony is that, in order to afford Watson, the acquiring team would have to mortgage its future to be able to build a winner around him.
The only exception I see is MIA. Even then, if it were Tua, #3, a 2nd, and something else, that’s a team that is several more pieces away from serious competition. I just don’t see a TB situation where the addition of Watson makes a team a threat for the next 1-4 years when factoring in acquisition cost.
The only exception I see is MIA. Even then, if it were Tua, #3, a 2nd, and something else, that’s a team that is several more pieces away from serious competition. I just don’t see a TB situation where the addition of Watson makes a team a threat for the next 1-4 years when factoring in acquisition cost.
Last edited:
Yes, definitely make the offer, but the Jets with the #2 pick (and other picks/players) and the Dolphins with Tua and the #3 pick (and other players/picks) are where Houston should be looking first. Assuming Watson will go the Jets, I'd imagine that Miami would be an acceptable destination.
This is where I am on this as well.
If you can put together the package the Texans want, it's going to be a hefty price to pay and then you still have to build a team around him to compete.
I'm probably in the minority on this, but I'd rather they draft someone, have him on a rookie deal and use your money and draft capital to build a team around him vs going out and getting someone.
And I'm glad they did not get Stafford; 33 years old and has one exactly zero playoff wins.
And sure, you can blame the Lions for that, having a crappy team around him, but still, what is his window, two years? Three years?
Then what?
He's 26 years old. He's under contract through 2025. That's plenty of time to build a team around him.
Re: draft, what are the chances they draft someone as good or even as close to as good as Watson? 5%? Maybe 10% if they trade up? Sure, if the Pats knew they were going to get an awesome QB in this or next year's draft, then Watson doesn't make sense, but of course they don't and can't know that. That's the value Watson provides - he's as close to a sure thing as they come barring unforeseen catastrophic injury.
I find the whole "build a team without a QB" logic just stupid.
What is the team that has had consistent success without a very good QB? I honestly can't think of one, a year or two... sure, but long term... nope.
Now think of the teams that have had plenty of success with gaping holes elsewhere but elite QBs. Those are playoff teams and contenders. It's a whole lot easier to find a starting guard, or LB or S or CB than a good starting QB.
The idea of thinking that you'll use your assets elsewhere and Hope you get a good QB somewhere instead of getting the single biggest determinant of team success long term and filling in the margins cheaper is wild.
What is the team that has had consistent success without a very good QB? I honestly can't think of one, a year or two... sure, but long term... nope.
Now think of the teams that have had plenty of success with gaping holes elsewhere but elite QBs. Those are playoff teams and contenders. It's a whole lot easier to find a starting guard, or LB or S or CB than a good starting QB.
The idea of thinking that you'll use your assets elsewhere and Hope you get a good QB somewhere instead of getting the single biggest determinant of team success long term and filling in the margins cheaper is wild.
There's pluses and minuses to everything.
As far as their chances they draft someone as good or even close to as good as Watson; they once drafted a guy with the 199th pick who turned out to be pretty good.
So who knows.
Sure. And someone once won the lottery, doesn't mean buying lottery tickets is a better way to make money than investing.
The cheap QB - at least for four years - approach can make you a competitive team if the guy is good, though even then you are going to be at the mercy of the 2-3 year NFL contention cycle if he isn’t great.
The rest of your roster will turn over too much to, assuming you are even successfully executing many other personnel decisions, to keep it good enough to compete with the teams that do have top QB. Over time, it is unlikely you will draft or otherwise acquire players in a markedly superior way to other contenders, so the notion of building a team chock full of talent around a good but not great QB to realistically contend with the other top teams perennially is shaky.
For instance, the Rams have a lot talent, but they did not have a great QB so they’re essentially a perennial early playoff loser had they held onto Goff. There are worse fates, to be sure, but we aren’t choosing between those worse fates and a Rams/Goff experience. The opportunity to acquire a sure fire top 5 QB in the league for the next 7-10 years almost never presents itself. I can’t subscribe to the idea that trading first rounders (which bust all the time, even for good teams) or paying big bucks to a top QB (which all the top teams that have one do) is a worse strategy than hoping to build and maintain a roster with top end talent around a more pedestrian QB.
Miami has almost $25m in cap. Cutting/restructuring guys - Van Noy, Ogbah, Rowe, etc - after June 1 can easily save them another $20m. Extensions for guys like Jones and Howard can get them another $20ish million. That gives them as much cap as the Patriots.
Watsons cap for the year is in the low 20s this season and the low $40m the 2 seasons after. They could easily restructure and front load the contract (which makes both team and player happy) to either bite the bullet this year and free up cap going forward, or restructure him to around 30m and still have cap for some top tier free agent signings.
Miami is not hamstrung over the next half decade by a Watson trade. Far from it.
Totally agree---the fact you can possibly do it without an uppper-tier QB doesn't change that it is by far the easiest way to contend. The only reason I think Pats might, contrary to their usuall approach to spreading risk, make a big play for Watson is they surely know that is true...
I have my money spread around in three different investments at the present time.
Myself, my youngest sister and my cousin hit on a 250,000.00 lottery winning that we split three ways.
So there you go.
I don't think it's that you never get a QB, it's the order of operations: do you build your team up first and then drop the QB into a good situation, or do you draft the QB and then have him grow along with the rest of the team? I would argue that the Patriots, Seahawks, Steelers, and Chiefs all took the first approach; they had pretty good bones and then the insertion of a top QB (even if guys like Brady and Roethlisberger were still developing) took them to the next level. The Colts with Manning and the Bills with Josh Allen took the opposite approach, just throwing the QB in and letting him take his lumps along with everyone else.
Brady isn't really a good example. The Patriots didn't build a team then go looking for a QB, they built around an in his prime Pro-Bowl QB in Bledsoe who had taken them to the SuperBowl a few years prior.
The Chiefs in many ways are an example of why you trade to get a QB when you can. That was a pretty decent team, it became a contender when they traded multiple 1sts to get a QB.
Okay. On one hand that creates several ifs. On the other, they would still have some draft capital and cap space to address those ifs.
Definitely a better position than anyone else. MIA knows that and that they are probably a place that might intrigue Watson. Where is the line then between HOU caving and saying “we’ll take our chances” and call his bluff? I’ll be cheering for MIA to blow this. They might have a competent enough FO now to not, though.
Are they an example of why you trade to get a QB when you can, or are they an example of why you get a QB once you've built a good situation to drop him into?
Neither, they're an example of somewhat lucking into a potentially all time great QB, because if they or anyone else knew what he was they'd have traded up a lot higher to get him.
Edit: but the answer is kind of a bit of both, in that by acquiring him when they did they already had some weapons, and then they were able to take the extra cap room and spend extra around him to build a title team while he was making peanuts. But I lean toward the latter (dropping him into a good situation) vs. the former.
It is an interesting question, but I think it is more the former than the latter, they had a good defense that was being wasted, traded 2 2nd rounders for a QB, got better, then traded 2 1sts and a 3rd to move up to draft his replacement. Overall they spent 2 1sts, 2 2nds and a 3rd on the QB position. They became a true contender because they realized that QB was vital. They traded a pair of 2nds for Smith.... realized they needed someone better and traded a pair of 1sts to move up for Mahomes.
The Chiefs were very much built around the idea that you need a QB and you should pay the price to trade for one, and if the opportunity to upgrade comes around you take it. It's very much the opposite of the "well let's not allocate assets to QB" strategy many are espousing. The haul for their 2 QBs combined was close to the Watson request (though the recouped part of it by moving Smith to a desperate WFT).
View: https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/1358457336394883082
So we know at least 1 of the other offers.
Bridgewater, #8 and a 5th.
So we know at least 1 of the other offers.
Bridgewater, #8 and a 5th.