If the only issue we're talking about is cost, what the Rams paid must be seen as relative to what upper level QBs cost to acquire. And, there simply are very few comps because it is rare that a Stafford type talent becomes available.

While we paid a lot in draft capital to get Stafford, what we have to pay Stafford in light of his place in the elite (or near elite) vet QB hierarchy is modest. I predict that if Rogers stays in GB, it'll cost'em $40 mil per year, probably 100% guaranteed or near that.

This is why my mention of what Lance cost the Niners. It is true that his dollar cost isn't very high. But then again no one has any idea when he'll play (and unless Jimmy G gets hurt, probably not at all in 2021). So likely throw that year away with zero production but they are still paying him a few million.

But after that, no one has any idea how this unbelievably inexperienced player will translate to the NFL. Sure, he could be the next Brett Farve or Russel Wilson. The likelihood of it? It would take some severe odds for anyone to bet on that.

So the Niners got a project, with little exposure to the big college games and teams. And his upside is as 100% speculative as Tutu Atwell's is. The Rams got a sure thing. By sure thing I mean a terrific experienced player with 12 years of NFL tape.

So I just can't go there that a legitimate debate is Stafford's cost. You don't win a Superbowl with a so-so QB.