my take on this (nothing new) (and, long)

I see it as a simple formula. I post about this a lot. But this is an appropriate place for it.

A study says that good teams spend about 60% of their cap on 10 big contracts.

The Rams won't meet that exact formula because they have both AD and Goff to handle.

With those 2 on the books when Goff gets paid, it will probably be more like 8-9 big contracts total.

Chances are the Rams don't have Goff on the books with an extension until 2021. None of this is an issue UNTIL 2021. Before then they have plenty of cap space and some room to create more if they want.

For 2021, they already have 5 big contracts on the books (7+ M and more): Hav, Cooks, Gurley, Woods, and AD. Add Goff and that will be 6. Following the 60% formula, they will probably have room for 2-3 more if that all stays the same.

They have a lot more candidates for those 2-3 spots than they have spots. Plus Noteboom comes up after 2021, and if he works out as a replacement for AW, then, he's a must keep player.

by 2021 they will be making some hard choices when it comes to who the other 6-7 are after AD and Goff. BUT good team managers can pull that off.

That's one reason why the next 3 1st round picks (2019-2021) are so important. Assuming they are low 1st round picks, you get starting caliber talent for very low cap hits.

Another consideration is this. You need more on your team with a young qb than with a more veteran, seasoned one. So the assumption is that by 2021, Goff will not need as much of a team around him as they need around him when he's less experienced (by "team around him" I mean everything, including defense).

There's this mistaken belief out there that when you pay your qb the team takes a step back. That's not true. If it were true then the Saints could not do as well as they are because they're paying Brees. Same with the Steelers and Roethlisberger, Chargers and Rivers, Colts and Luck. Seattle (which is in the hunt) and Wilson. Heck most of the playoff candidates have a veteran qb on a top contract.

The difference as I said is that the Rams will have both AD and Goff. So then you have to ask if they're better with AD and Goff and 6-7 other big contract guys, or with just Goff and 9 other big contract guys. Is AD worth that? I think yes, but that aside, the objective way to put it is that it is absolutely reasonable to claim that AD + Goff + 6-7 others is worth the same in terms of team effectiveness as Goff + 9 other guys without AD. At the very minimum it's a wash. Certainly a case can be made that having one of the 2-3 best, if not THE best, defenders in the game is worth sacrificing another big contract or 2. Argubaly. for example, AD was a key difference in a couple of big wins. So at a minimum there's a case for it.

Now as for the CD'S post above:

Quote

What do you think happens to the team after we have to pay Goff what he is (deservedly) due a.k.a. his rookie deal expires? Think the front office will be able to keep scheming picks/trades to be competitive?

That’s the biggest hurdle for the Rams’ long-term success. The Seahawks underwent a facelift recently after paying Russ – albeit, injuries played a factor, too – which shows how hard it is to build a roster after paying a franchise QB. The core of Gurley, Donald, Cooks, Havenstein is already intact, but it could lead to guys like Peters, Joyner, Saffold and Barron leaving. Keeping Saffold around is a must.

I have several responses.

1. The guy posing the question mentions trades. IMO trades are NOT the way to go because if you trade for a young vet he is closer to his 2nd contract year. That was the case with Cooks. Or he is already on a 2nd contract. At this point they are better off keeping their picks, cause picks are cheap for 4 years. Trades aren't.

2. There's that "how hard it is to keep a roster and pay the qb" myth. No, tell that to the Steelers, Saints, Chargers, etc as I pointed out above. To endlessly harp on the Seattle example IMO both gets that whole issue wrong and even gets Seattle wrong. Seattle IS in the hunt with Wilson AND the guys they lost were more about injuries than anything else. So for 2 completely different sets of reasons, no, Seattle does not prove you close your window when you pay your qb...plus, of course, AGAIN (and I have no idea why some people don't remember this), there are plenty of contenders in the league who DO pay a veteran qb. I hope we never hear the "Seattle proves paying the qb hurts" myth again.

3. Minor point. Saffold is not going to last until 2021. Not sure why his name came up. They have the cap space to keep him if they want in 2019 and 2020, but by 2021 he will be a 12 year vet. Do you give one of your 8-9 big contracts to a 12 year guard? Plus if Kromer has done ANYTHING absolutely right throughout his career, it's develop guards. That holds up every where he has been and it continues now.

4. Another minor point. As for the "core," I don't think all 5 of the big contract guys currently under contract for 2021 will make it to 2021. I am not so sure that's a "core." Maybe one of those guys is expendable.

5. To repeat something--and to echo point #3--a qb can do more as a seasoned vet than he can as a young guy with more big contracts around him. Let's call this the Brees/Rivers Axiom. So you trade off. More big contracts on your team till you pay your qb, then, fewer big contracts BUT a more seasoned qb. As I keep saying a lot of teams are thriving that way.


....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2018 07:13AM by zn.