2020 Miscellaneous NFL News

[OldSchoolSnapper]

C'mon, their ages matter. One is 33 and the other turns 38 midseason. You have a better chance of Stafford being the good QB he is at 36 than you do of Rodgers being as good at 41. We've gotten a bit used to 40 year old QBs now but nobody can convince me a 5 year age gap isn't significant.

 

Stafford won't have any more excuses though. We get to see how "underrated" he is. Personally I think I've heard that so much, the guy is actually overrated or properly rated.

[HiAndTight]

I think in these types of deals it almost always has to be both high priced QBs exchanging sides to make the cap work on both ends. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Hurts.

 

 

I don't actually think that's true. Cutting a player or trading them USUALLY doesn't make a difference, the cap hit is the same.

 

But if they've got abnormally small signing bonuses relative to their contract, then Philly in theory should send us more, not less. Wentz doesn't offer any value...so if we're to take on his contract, that really should be more in return, not less.

[HiAndTight]

C'mon, their ages matter. One is 33 and the other turns 38 midseason. You have a better chance of Stafford being the good QB he is at 36 than you do of Rodgers being as good at 41. We've gotten a bit used to 40 year old QBs now but nobody can convince me a 5 year age gap isn't significant.

 

Stafford won't have any more excuses though. We get to see how "underrated" he is. Personally I think I've heard that so much, the guy is actually overrated or properly rated.

 

 

Who argued their ages don't matter?

 

The argument is that Rodgers is better than Stafford and probably will be over the next contract. Not that age is irrelevant.

 

But I'm not sure how you can both argue that Stafford is both overrated(or rated fairly) and that him being 5 years younger makes up for the difference in talent.

[adambr2]

I think in these types of deals it almost always has to be both high priced QBs exchanging sides to make the cap work on both ends. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Hurts.

 

 

I don't actually think that's true. Cutting a player or trading them USUALLY doesn't make a difference, the cap hit is the same.

 

But if they've got abnormally small signing bonuses relative to their contract, then Philly in theory should send us more, not less. Wentz doesn't offer any value...so if we're to take on his contract, that really should be more in return, not less.

 

The signing bonus doesn't follow to the new team true, but the roster bonuses do. So cutting Wentz and trading him aren't exactly the same thing. That's why I say in a deal like this you almost have to take on Wentz to facilitate. It's saving the Eagles $10M for the roster bonus on Wentz for 2021. They still take a 33M hit, but that's better than 43M and thus is probably the only way they are clearing space for Rodgers, and then they are off the hook for Wentz after 2021.

 

I'm not sure I agree that Wentz has no value. I think there is value in taking him on for a year and seeing what you have with better weapons and a much better line. He's still young with upside, like Goff. It's easy to move on in 2022 if it doesn't work out.

 

But I do think you ARE getting more from the Eagles starting with the #6 overall pick. I also think Rodgers in San Francisco probably makes them a SB contender (thus picking late in the following year), whereas Rodgers in Philly would be still somewhat of a question mark.

[adambr2]

I don't know how to quantify the difference in value between Rodgers and Stafford, but you might have 3 chances to win a Super Bowl with Rodgers and get very good but not elite play out of Stafford for 5 years.

 

Stafford is also 7 years older than Goff so I think it's clear that production is going to outweigh age in trade valuation unless you're dealing with someone who may be imminently retiring. I don't see anything in Rodgers' performance or attitude that suggests he's planning on walking away anytime soon unless things change.

[HiAndTight]

 

The signing bonus doesn't follow to the new team true, but the roster bonuses do. So cutting Wentz and trading him aren't exactly the same thing. That's why I say in a deal like this you almost have to take on Wentz to facilitate. It's saving the Eagles $10M for the roster bonus on Wentz for 2021. They still take a 33M hit, but that's better than 43M and thus is probably the only way they are clearing space for Rodgers, and then they are off the hook for Wentz after 2021.

 

I'm not sure I agree that Wentz has no value. I think there is value in taking him on for a year and seeing what you have with better weapons and a much better line. He's still young with upside, like Goff. It's easy to move on in 2022 if it doesn't work out.

 

But I do think you ARE getting more from the Eagles starting with the #6 overall pick. I also think Rodgers in San Francisco probably makes them a SB contender (thus picking late in the following year), whereas Rodgers in Philly would be still somewhat of a question mark.

 

Yes, but the roster bonuses are seldom guaranteed. That's the whole point. The Rams guaranteed Goff's 2021 and 2022 March 1 Roster Bonus last year. So that's 18 in future guarantees...which is why they couldn't cut him and why they were able to trade him. Also a really small signing bonus for a 134 million dollar deal. Just 25 million.

 

And I suppose Wentz has some value in that you can try him out for a year...but it's pretty minimal at this point.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

C'mon, their ages matter. One is 33 and the other turns 38 midseason. You have a better chance of Stafford being the good QB he is at 36 than you do of Rodgers being as good at 41. We've gotten a bit used to 40 year old QBs now but nobody can convince me a 5 year age gap isn't significant.

 

Stafford won't have any more excuses though. We get to see how "underrated" he is. Personally I think I've heard that so much, the guy is actually overrated or properly rated.

 

 

Who argued their ages don't matter?

 

The argument is that Rodgers is better than Stafford and probably will be over the next contract. Not that age is irrelevant.

 

But I'm not sure how you can both argue that Stafford is both overrated(or rated fairly) and that him being 5 years younger makes up for the difference in talent.

 

I don't think that's a difficult argument to make. Stafford is good, but there are people who think he's a borderline Hall of Famer cursed by Detroit. He's always referred to as "underrated," but once everyone says that are you really underrated? The best quarterbacks can will crappy teams to 9 or 10 wins, Stafford can't. They've been a perennial loser for the most part. I think he's better than Goff though.

 

I think you might get this haul for Rodgers, I really don't know. But if Stafford works out he may be a 7 year solution. I dunno if Rodgers is that for anybody. I also think the Rams got hosed in this though. I'm stunned Stafford got that kind of return.

[HiAndTight]

 

I don't think that's a difficult argument to make. Stafford is good, but there are people who think he's a borderline Hall of Famer cursed by Detroit. He's always referred to as "underrated," but once everyone says that are you really underrated? The best quarterbacks can will crappy teams to 9 or 10 wins, Stafford can't. They've been a perennial loser for the most part. I think he's better than Goff though.

 

I think you might get this haul for Rodgers, I really don't know. But if Stafford works out he may be a 7 year solution. I dunno if Rodgers is that for anybody. I also think the Rams got hosed in this though. I'm stunned Stafford got that kind of return.

 

 

No, the difference in talent between him and Rodgers. Not him and Goff. If you believe Rodgers is substantially better, wouldn't it stand to reason that would make up for the age difference? That's without considering that Rodgers would be sliding right into the same offense he currently plays in and could very well push the Rams over the top.

 

I do think Stafford is underrated(unless you rate him at one of the top ~10 QB's in the NFL). And I absolutely do think it's because he plays for such a terrible franchise.

 

I think he's had one defense that was in the top 15. He's had historically bad running games.

 

So bad defenses and no running game, even with Calvin, it's kinda hard to put much blame on Stafford. But I guess we'll see. If he's that good, they should be much better the next couple years offensively.

[SeaBass]

I'm amused by the reports that Stafford told Detroit to trade him anywhere except the Patriots. I'm sure that's mostly due to Matt Patricia being hired back there but it's not like he'd be directly involved with Stafford day to day, I'm sure they could co-exist. He's probably just had enough of the "Patriot way" which tickles me a little.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

New England isn't for everybody. I think there's a reason they've gotten a lot of production from retreads that were cast aside by most of the league. Those guys have limited options and the Patriots are cheap. Smart, but cheap. I think there are some veteran players who expect their names to carry a certain level of admiration and respect and that's just not really how the Patriots roll.

[Jaylyn]

Just a superb trade from the Lions point of view. The picks plus a great change of scenery candidate in Goff? I'm sensing John Dorsey just may make the Lions respectable again!

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The Lions will probably blow the picks and Goff stinks. The worst part of this for GB is that Stafford could make LA really good.

[worm81]

I just don't see the Stafford love. At his best his team was 10-6, at Rodgers' worse his team was 10-6. The Lions had some pretty decent defenses and Calvin Johnson for awhile. Maybe I am wrong, but he isn't getting younger and seems to be injured a bit.

[MrTPlush]

I just don't see the Stafford love. At his best his team was 10-6, at Rodgers' worse his team was 10-6. The Lions had some pretty decent defenses and Calvin Johnson for awhile. Maybe I am wrong, but he isn't getting younger and seems to be injured a bit.

 

Stafford never had a good defense outside of one year. Every other year it was pretty much solidly in the bottom half of the league.

 

That being said I think he is becoming overrated by all the talk he is underrated. I don’t see blowing two first rounders on him. Why not just go draft a potential young stud versus a guy who just doesn’t seem like a guy who can really lead a team to consistent big wins?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Rams think Stafford gives them a chance to win now, but they have 7 starters on expiring deals. They soured on Goff but this was as much about that as it was solving a financial problem. They are sort of dire straits there and Stafford "only" comes with a $19mm cap hit. And I think they can get it to around 15 if he restructures.

[SeaBass]

My take on Stafford is he's been a notch below great. I've always felt he had some Favre in him, the bad kind, that his upside couldn't quite make up for. However he has the talent and physical ability to be great, if McVay's offense gives him the structure and protection he needs to make quality decisions he could have some great years ahead of him.

[CheezWizHed]

Yes, I agree with the Favre-lite description. He can throw you into and out of games pretty easily.

 

I'm wondering how how accuracy will "age". In his early career, he struggled to complete over 60% of his passes (1 time in his first 5 years). His age 27-30 years, he was at 65-67%, then dropped back to 64% the last two years. 64% is still good, but if his career follows a bell curve, that might not bode well for his career longevity.

 

Interesting to note on Brady and Rodger's completion percentages - when they drop to 60-62%, they've had really bad years. Brees never did see a drop like that- he just couldn't throw the ball over 10 yards at the end.

 

But the Rams will be tough next year no doubt.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Favre Lite for me was always Jay Cutler. Stafford was Philip Rivers in a worse organization.

 

Hard for me to predict how the Rams will be, they still have a money/FA problem. Plus, that division is so competitive, I can't tell you who will be 1st or 4th. No team finishing in any slot would surprise me. How does SF bounce back? Is Seattle about to drop off (it kinda feels like that is looming) and be 8-8? Kyler Murray seems to have AZ headed in the right direction. It's just a very competitive division.

[jerichoholicninja]

Anyone who's watched Goff the last two years knows he was holding that team back. Stafford is clearly an upgrade. How much and was he worth the picks, who knows, but the Rams just made a major improvement.

[nate82]

So the Lions actually received other offers from the Bears, Panthers, and Broncos for Stafford all of them had more 1st round picks going to the Lions than what the Rams offered. If these rumors are true then did the Lions really accept the best offer? Maybe the Lions like Goff more than the picks and that is why they went with the Rams offer. The Panthers are a weird one but the Bears and Broncos makes sense as both teams are looking for QB's. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bears end up with either Watson or Wentz and the Broncos probably end up with Wentz as I don't think the Texans will trade Watson to the Broncos.

 

The asking price for Watson is rather steep and the team that Watson really wants to go to is rather confusing (Jets). I don't believe the Bears have the 2 young defensive players to trade to the Texans for Watson, they do have the picks to trade if they wanted to go that route. Actually I am not sure any team has what the Texans are asking for in terms of players that they want.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

If I were the Bears I would throw anything at getting Watson. How long can you stand having nothing at QB? It's very, very rare that someone that good, a proven talent, comes available at age 25. That is easily worth multiple 1st round picks.

[CheezWizHed]

Favre Lite for me was always Jay Cutler. Stafford was Philip Rivers in a worse organization.

 

Cutler was "new-Farve". You know where they claim the new version has improved flavor of the old version, yet everyone gags on it and says its nothing like the original and demands the original back.

 

[jerichoholicninja]

So the Lions actually received other offers from the Bears, Panthers, and Broncos for Stafford all of them had more 1st round picks going to the Lions than what the Rams offered. If these rumors are true then did the Lions really accept the best offer? Maybe the Lions like Goff more than the picks and that is why they went with the Rams offer.

 

I thought the SI story I read this morning had no one else offering more than one first rounder.

[madbad2000]

 

The asking price for Watson is rather steep and the team that Watson really wants to go to is rather confusing (Jets). I don't believe the Bears have the 2 young defensive players to trade to the Texans for Watson, they do have the picks to trade if they wanted to go that route. Actually I am not sure any team has what the Texans are asking for in terms of players that they want.

 

I guess it all depends on how bad they want to hurt their defense. They have Roquan Smith and Jaylon Johnson. Could even offer a Kyle Fuller or Khalil Mack potentially. Their preference is probably to dump picks and a lot of them.

The Bears are going to go hard for Watson and being in the NFC is going to help a lot. I don't see Houston dealing with Indy. Jets and Dolphins have higher picks this year, but then you just kept Watson in the AFC. San Francisco would be a great fit too, but I would prefer the Bears for obvious reasons.

[nate82]

So the Lions actually received other offers from the Bears, Panthers, and Broncos for Stafford all of them had more 1st round picks going to the Lions than what the Rams offered. If these rumors are true then did the Lions really accept the best offer? Maybe the Lions like Goff more than the picks and that is why they went with the Rams offer.

 

I thought the SI story I read this morning had no one else offering more than one first rounder.

 

There was one team that offered 2 1sts and Washington offered their first foe this upcoming draft. Which is better than the 2 1sts that the Rams gave away.

 

I am assuming the 2 1sts were from the Bears and the Lions turned that one down. Earlier reports had the Panthers and Broncos offering multiple 1sts but the article has been edited since to just one 1st.