Re: Question

Quote
DaJudge
But if a team's true objective is to consistently win, getting handicapped with a Tier 2 or 3 QB that has as large of a salary as the elite Tier 1 QBs is the most risky path possible IMO.

And what is the record of teams that keep searching for qbs? Especially since this whole "who are the consistent winning qbs" thing only gets down to 3 names who have done it in the last 10 years--Brady, Rodgers, Mahomes.

I think there are a lot of things much more risky that giving a good franchise qb a normal starting qb 2nd contract.

Of all the teams that are regularly and abysmally bad, do you really think that the RISKIEST thing they did was giving a good starting qb a 2nd contract? I thought it was things like hiring a bad coach and keeping him too long or not looking hard at who your GM is.

Having said all that, is this is an argument against trading for Stafford? Absolutely not. I don't think this discussion gets down to or even has anything to do with Stafford.

I will say though that we should hope that putting a lot of money into the qb spot is not THAT risky, since the Rams are right now paying for 2 qbs, and it's more money than just paying one. If you think like me that they can do well with Stafford, it will be because the cap hit at qb for the 2021 Rams (42 M) is NOT a risk.

Stafford is a very interesting qb and acquiring him justifies itself. Does it guarantee a shot at winning the big one? No. There are too many examples of qbs who were as good as Stafford and some cases even better who never made it, never won it, or only made it once.

But I am not all that invested in the arguments FOR the trade because to me, bang, the trade justifies itself, end of story. I don't see what there is to argue about when it comes to that.

....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2021 07:25PM by zn.