Quote
ABQRam
Quote
Rampage2K-
Quote
ABQRam
Quote
Rams43
Quote
dzrams
Quote
Rams43
Quote
zn
Quote
Speed_Kills
Although it is true that Wade has traditionally valued edge rushers
I don’t like that AD is allowing himself to be used to reset the market
Is it "re-setting"?
In 2015 Suh's contract was 86% of the top qb's contract.
In 2016 it was similar with Von Miller.
In 2018, Von Miller's older deal, the highest for a defender, comes in at 63% of the top qb contract.
The market was already set for top defenders, it just regressed.
Give AD just 80% of the top qb's contract and it's 24 M. Which is not only NOT unreasonable, it doesn't even fully restore the market to what it already was for top defenders with Suh and Von Miller.
....
We both know that QB salaries have been going up much faster than other positions, DL players included.
So it’s a little disingenuous to use that statistical correlation.
Max already called you out on this very point in this very thread, I believe.
Donald, via his agent, could be arguing that QB salaries should not be going up much faster than other positions and that he is a player deserving of bringing that balance back.
It ultimately may not be a winning argument but it seems to be a reasonable one.
Here’s another reasonable argument.
QB salaries are skyrocketing for a reason. Teams realize that QB’s, especially top QB’s, are worth their weight in gold. You cannot be a winning team in today’s NFL without at least a decent QB. Just look at the QB’s in the playoffs every year.
Players at other positions are very important, of course. But Job One for any GM is to first get a QB. Job Two is to keep him healthy and happy.
Agreed 43. I always feel the need to preface what I'm about to say with "I love Donald and love to watch him play"...but...not many teams have won a Super Bowl without a quarterback who was at least somewhere between a B+ and an A-. Not saying it hasn't happened but it doesn't happen often. On the other hand, how many times has a team won a Super Bowl because they possessed a "transcendent talent" at defensive tackle? How many great defenses have been great because of a "transcendent talent" at tackle?
I have to be honest about something that bothers me. Donald has played 4 years and his acknowledged talent at his position has never translated into the RAMS having even a top 10 defense! Why is this? It's not has if the RAMS have had terrible players on defense in fact, quite the contrary, they have been very solid at most positions (you can't have a pro bowler at every position). Last year with Donald the RAMS defense finished 19th in the league! We were 28th against the run which I think is telling because that really needs to be stopped at the LOS. 28th! How much worse against the run should we be without Donald? An objective person would have to lean to a lot worse (although we could only drop 5 spots to 32) without a "transcendent talent" on your D-line. If Donald sits and we don't drop to the worst (32nd) then how valuable is a "transcendent talent" at DT against the run? For anyone who thinks I'm being sarcastic, I'm not...it's an honest question.
We were ranked 13th against the pass last year (couldn't even get into the top 10 in either category). But once again, without a "transcendent talent" at DT we should be worse...so how much worse, even giving a conservative estimate. Should we maybe drop to 20th? And overall, how much worse should the RAMS defense be? I think it would be fair to say that if Donald's value is what Donald and his agents believe it is we should drop from 19th to the bottom 25%, 25 or worse.
But I don't believe that is going to happen even if Donald sits, I believe we will improve in both run and pass defense even with our inexperienced group of LB's. And I definitely believe we will be better against the pass. So the question becomes what is the value of the DT position on defense even if you have a "transcendent talent" at the position?
This year the salary cap is $177 mil. How much does a team allocate for offense and defense? Let's say 55% offense and 45% defense just to have some numbers to work with. So that gives the team roughly $97.5 mil for offense and $79.5 million for defense. If you give one player on defense $25 mil of that it leaves you with $54.5 mil for the rest of your defense. I don't see how you ever will get a top 10 defense giving one player almost 33% of the money allocated for defense.
I don't know how much money the team allocates for offense and defense, I'm just thinking out loud regarding the value of different positions on defense. I'm also thinking out loud regarding how our defense will play with our new DBs, inexperienced LBs, and a DL that will have only one starter from last year if Donald sits. And if this happens and the defense improves does this say something about the overall value of that particular position on defense?
Good post and I agree with all of that.....although, we did finish ninth in defense ONE time, ironically in 2016 when we went 4-12.... the other three years we finished in the bottom half.
There is a great article I just posted about some of this stuff. Check it out!
[
ramsrule.com]
Thanks for catching that, I did miss it. 2016 we were 9th total yards, 10 against the pass, and we still sucked against the run...never top 10 in points.
I think the logic of this is off plus your facts are wrong. I don't know why you put the entire defense on one player...that's an odd kind of thing to do. According to logic like that, Mean Joe Green wasn't that good because his first 3 years in the league the Steelers D was mediocre in both yards and points. If you were running things for the Steelers then would you have dumped him?. But of course Greene was one of the greatest DTs to ever play the game and the people who knew how to appreciate that in 69-71 knew they only had to wait until there was a D around him. Another example--the fearsome foursome had Lundy, Jones, and Olsen together from 1962 on and in a twelve team league they were at the bottom of defensive stats, points AND yards, from 1962 through 1965. Not even the best DL in the history of the game could do it alone. But when they had players with them on D plus a coach in Allen, the FF dominated the game.
Plus last year the Rams DID rank top 10 in points, WHEN Donald played (14 games).
Trying to find ways to diminish who and what Donald is looks like sour grapes to me. It certainly isn;t realistic.
Same thing happened in 2000 on this board (or an earlier version) when Warner was up for a big contract and many fans actually argued, after 99 mind you, that the Rams didn't really need him and he had only been good one year and greedy athletes make me sick etc.
What you can't do, though, is find legitimate football reasons to diminish his play. People did that with Warner in 2000 too, though, I bet not a single poster who did that (and there were quite a few) would ever own up to it now.
....
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2018 10:42AM by zn.
