Tyrod's friend

We passed on not one but two franchise level QBs - and disturbingly (to me) is that they were looking hard to trade up to get Trubisky. IOW, the FO brain trust decided that Tyrod was sufficient to pass on Mahomes/Watson, but they clearly valued Trubisky considerably more than the two better QB prospects. If true, that shouldn't inspire confidence. That said, I don't grade drafts.

Indeed this could be part of the cost calculation. The NPV of a dollar and NFL talent takes on a different perspective. They haven't the timeline to let talent appreciate in value. Maybe I'm giving the NFL too much credit. I've spoken to people inside baseball HQ - guys that do this sort of intense financial analysis of baseball moves. They are truly mathematical geniuses and they don't fool around; they are using different variables to assess risk and return of various inputs. I just have a hard time thinking that ownership - with access to Ivy League brilliance in their own businesses outside sport - wouldn't apply that sort of acumen within their fantasy world on Sundays.

Mmmm. The Rams are pursuing a different strategy than anyone else in the draft it seems. They are not accumulating draft picks and instead are using them to acquire veteran talent. Most of the NFL it seems to me is selling veteran talent to acquire draft picks - the sellers (like the Bills, Patriots, presumably the Giants) are stockpiling. So to me, it begs the question of why are they going it alone? I've seen several posters are repeating (with cause) the idea that they are putting their chips to the center of the table. That doesn't seem enough of an answer to me. Sure, trying to win now. But their direction is a radical departure, they are absolutely denuding themselves of future talent flows. George Allen in the 60s and 70s was a radical departure as well. I'm wondering if they haven't seen a different inherent valuation of the picks themselves. And in particular they are doing this in a draft that seems for all the world to be chock full of talent. A sort of different Moneyball. And at any rate, it does get to the bottom line of your point: "teams assess them as having more value than they do". What is the value of a draft pick? It just strikes me that the average fan and even the superior fan cannot answer this question, because no effort is made to put a dollar sign to the picks. So the Rams, by trading so many picks for veterans, seem to be putting into place some information and creating an arbitrage that we can't count.

Here's a general question and I don't think I've seen it answered anywhere that I've looked ... Teams are making decisions to move around capital. They have to know that a pick has a value. I mean, an intrinsic dollar value. You would have to expect that wouldn't you? Based on the way any organization works? They aren't using things as antiquated as a chart Jimmy Johnson created before tablets and smart phones. Surely we could calculate that value on some level. A pick in the top 10 is expected to be a ... Pro Bowl player. A PB player earns X. The draft pick will cost us Y. The likelihood of getting a PB is NN% and the likelihood he will be at least an NFL starter for 5 years is PP%. A pick in the next 10 changes the paradigms. Any pick after the 2nd round, the percentages are too random to be calculated. Brandon Cooks will play for 1 more year at WR at a near PB level - say, SW's. Sammy signed for $16MM (?). Cooks roughly = SW. The 22nd pick in the NFL Draft has a value of the above percentages. Honestly I think this is the level of thought that happens and we just don't see it. We don't even attempt to calculate it.

Go back a couple of years and imagine you are creating a strategy for a multibillion dollar organization - and figuring on long term capital expenditures. Is it possible that when the Rams busted a move on trading away a top pick for RGIII that they knew then, that the cap would change? Is that giving them too much credit?

Oh, 100%. Let's go back in time. If we had simply gotten 2 Time AP Clady, MVP Clay Matthews and PB Haloti Ngata this team has a different angle throughout the last 15 years. Just those last two names; if Haloti Ngata had clogged the middle and let Clay run rampant you have a top 5 defense nearly every year. Those weren't hard picks to make. These aren't random names here. Most everyone on a Message Board was clamoring for anything other than McKelvin, Whitner and Maybin. And that's not unusual - we wound up having to take Marshawn Lynch and passing on the best CB in the NFL for the last 25 years because we were busy playing musical chairs with Willis McGahee. It's not that Lynch wasn't a good pick, although we let him leave too soon. We jerked our chain at RB since Travis Henry was here because the FO always was the smartest guys in the room. If you fail at talent assessment generally, then it just doesn't matter if we had picked 17 QBs in 17 years. This has been an inept organization at assessing talent for a generation. Cheers, Alex.

"All of these old and/or expensive players can’t be replaced easily in the draft because the Rams have traded away so many picks: They sent their first-round pick to New England for Cooks, their second-round pick to Buffalo for Sammy Watkins, their fourth-round pick this year and second-round pick next year to Kansas City for Peters, their fifth-round pick to Denver for Talib and their seventh-round pick to Washington for Derek Carrier. The Rams have added some draft picks in trades as well, but those are late in the draft: The Rams’ first draft pick is 87th overall, and that’s their only pick in the Top 130." Has the expanding cap space increased the value of a draft pick, or decreased it? Given the fixed cost of draft picks and the increasing costs of signing veterans it doesn't seem there can be another way to see this. The value of draft picks must be going up. What does this say about the Rams strategy over the last several years? For those that remember, isn't it familiar to see a former George Allen team seem to turn it's back on rookie talent? http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/04/rams-have-plenty-of-cap-space-in-2019-and-theyll-need-it/

Not sure, but I believe in the 17 years since Kelly has left we've resigned 2 first round picks. If you think that we missed the playoffs for 17 years because we didn't draft the right QB, you are missing the larger point.

Isn't the most rational reason Tom Brady is fine with Cooks leaving is because Belichek has a deal in place to replace him with a guy like OBJ - and he knows that? Certainly such a decision to trade Cooks wasn't made without at least some conversation with the franchise QB. Two #1 picks, at the bottom of the round, in a perfect place for the Giants to draft an OT (McGlinchey) and a G (Wynn/Hernandez). And oh by the way, 2 #1s. The asking price for Beckham.

I've read something like this regularly so this response isn't t Kdiggz but general. Why is it that only other position players "leave next year" but QBs never do? In the past it's been because the FO has failed to assess roster talent properly - which reflected an organization that culturally would have valued a strong safety over a DT in the top 5, or a CB over a great OT at 12. If you cannot trust the FO to make decisions on contracts and roster building and retaining, then moving up or even drafting a QB at 12 is a completely lost cause. OTOH, drafting Roquan Smith doesn't mean losing him in four years. Can Roquan Smith change your team? Well, I'd say that Clay Matthews has been pretty important in Green Bay. Ray Smith changed the world in Baltimore. Cheers, A

They've already lost one of the WR. The LT is in decline. The point here is that their QB move was considered a, failure after the 16 season and their success today isn't because of him. If the HC doesn't come along, it's completely a different song. We'll see if Mr. Goff has what it takes but their HC has more to say about his success than the decision to move up to get him. And the ultimate irony here is that part of the treasure trove the Rams gave up came from the Redskins, when DC blundered their way to "moving up" and getting RGIII. I doubt the Skins are saying "hi". Who knows. If the Skins didn't move up to get Griffin, maybe Cousins is the starter and maybe the Skins are taking Aaron Donald in 2014 instead of the Rams. Oh, the hidden costs of moving up. But hey take a shot. What can possibly go wrong?

Can we still call it taking a swing if we just draft the QB available at 12? or for that matter, 22? Question is whether or not we can trust the brains over there. If not they are just as likely to screw up the second pick in the draft as the 12th. Just get it right. This one time, be the team that drafts Ryan Clady instead of Leodis. Be the team that drafts Haloti Ngata instead of Donte Whitner. Get Clay Matthews instead of Aaron Maybin. It's always taking a swing. No matter where in the draft.

After the 2016 season they went out and got themselves a damned good LT, a couple of WR, and a pretty brilliant offensive mind. I don't think anyone in LA was saying "Hi" before then and I know my RamsFanSinceWarner son wasn't crowing too much.

This is so true it's ridiculous. It needs to be put in super large, 72 font print and then stapled on to the forehead of every talent evaluator in the Draft Room. Most QBs spend their entire lifetimes within a 1.5% swing of their initial completion percentage. Rare exception I'm sure, but outside of players that change a system (Montana, Brees) players stay the same.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Defense doesn't prevent a QB from doing his job and I don't for a second mean to dispute your points. Field position is obviously important. The bad defense of Oklahoma didn't prevent Baker Mayfield from leading a proficient offense. Offenses overcome what a defense does and the other way around. That's what makes it a team game. The QB is responsible for his 10 though. In fact, if the situation wasn't perfect for Josh Rosen, his performance lagged - considerably. I think that's the very essence of leadership. Anybody can freaking pass the ball when the pocket is provided and the defense is doing it's job. Rosen was saddled with a bad defense. Boo-hoo. His WR group while poor should have been offset by Pro-level offensive lineman. His mobility within and effectiveness outside the pocket is pretty well established. As a frame of reference Mayfield's differential between touchdowns and interceptions was more than Rosen's total touchdowns. Look at it from a different perspective. Mayfield's team graduated Joe Mixon and two other offensive players after the 2016 season. Other than Orlando Brown, his offensive line has been destitute of skill players. Obviously the defense wasn't doing him any favors. Yet all Baker Mayfield did was to win nearly every award available; he was already playing at a high level and then he took a quantum leap forward. His team went from 5th ranked, to 3rd ranked. Regarding Josh Rosen? The team was ranked as high as 7th during his tenure. In two years it was ranked no less than 16th. It wasn't a talentless team and that is my point. I have been reacting to a post where someone was saying he felt sure that Rosen was a proven winner. I don't see it. Just because Josh Rosen can "drop it in a bucket" doesn't mean he elevated any team anywhere. It's quite, quite reasonable to say he had the opposite effect ESPECIALLY since there have been some words to that effect within that organization.You don't want to address how a nationally ranked team three times failed to finish very well, be my guest. Walk around with your head in the sand. And ... Josh Rosen's team scored more points when he was playing than when he was replaced ... is that the sum total of your point here? What am I to take from that, other than the obvious truism that the #1 QB was significantly better than the #2 QB - especially when the #1 is a prodigious passer? No. I think there is SUBSTANTIAL circumstantial evidence that Josh Rosen is anything BUT a leader; but certainly, there is no evidence to me that he is a winner. And that, at the start of it, was what I started this line of conversation. Finally, if you don't think that Lamar Jackson was the best player on the field for nearly all of his games, that he was the difference maker, then story over. You live in a fantasy world my friend. With all due effort to eliminate snark and offer respect, Cheers.

I fail to see what in God's good name the status of the defense has to the QB's ability. There are a legion of teams with horrible defenses and an offense that rose above. I'm not going to say Baker Mayfield had to deal with as bad a defense as UCLA, but Oklahoma gave up 389 points. Maybe if you aren't throwing more interceptions and less touchdowns, maybe the defense isn't working so hard. i don't know, but I do know that QBs overcome a bad defense. Yeah, winning is a team thing especially in football. Some players rise above it. I can think of a team where the offense basically lost it's LT, started a rookie RT at LT, had it's two starting WRs shipped out and replaced them - by some accounts - with literally the worst wide receivers in football, what some people would say a very, very flawed OC and was playing with a running back that was starting to show some wear at 29. Yet the team got to the playoffs. Sure as #hit wasn't because of the defense on that team. Y'all were so willing to get him out of town you practically bought Tyrod a ticket. Happens all the time. Most players can't lift their team and sometimes the ones that do, you don't notice them til they are gone. And Lamar is on a winning team? BULL. Almost every single analyst says that Lamar is the best player on the field, that he is the difference maker. It's almost unbelievable to me that you can say that - did you look at their records while he was there??? And from what I saw of analyst reports, his WR group was worse than what Rosen had and I don't see any Louisville offensive lineman coming to play in the NFL next year (or for that matter, while he was in Kentucky). I've seen enough guys that play a great game of QB in my life. And I've seen players like DeShaun Watson. Players like Tom Brady. Brady wasn't the best QB when he got here, not by a long shot. Anyone want to nominate Chad Pennington to the HOF? He got his teams to 9 or more wins four times. And no, I'm not putting Tyrod into their group. But it's not like baseball or tennis or basketball. It's not just individual skill. I want a player that wins and lifts his teammates. There is no way a guy that has been on a team ranked as high as 7th, no way you can tell me that he was on a talentless team or that he lifted his teammates up. Football is a team game, and teams need leaders. It's the difference between drafting a QB and drafting a Franchise. Clearly we are on different sides of this one. Cheers and a good day. Alex PS Baker Mayfield for President.

Out of date terminology. The Jets, Cards, Vikings, Eagles, Browns, Broncos and Bills will be starting a backup QB. Many of them have been signed to multi-year contracts. For many of them their last start was for a playoff team.

You've got the Browns, according to King, taking Josh Allen. One other surefire QB needy team in NYJ between us and the next QB after the Jests. Not my call, but sure all it would take is the Jests passing on Baker. I'm feeling pretty good the "QB Whisperer" Shumer wants to develop his backup like he's done before. Not that hard to see Mayfield or Rosen falling to Buffalo if Allen goes #1 overall.

Remember the TV show The Wonder Years? I was Kevin. Green Puma's, the NYJ varsity jacket, the whole thing. I was George Sauer, Jr. NY Jets. All the way.

Tremaine Edmunds... does anyone else have an issue with giving a heavy contract to a guy that will be 23 when his first contract comes up? You will be paying to teach this very young man how to play football and then he'll almost certainly leave for better money. (fair enough: I've never seen him play and all I know are his stunning numbers.) I just think football minds are going to look at that age and realize what it means financially and push him down the line. Just an immense, immense amount of risk to me.

Clearly I am not in the Jackson camp - I started a whole thread against him. Sorry dude, but you and others making this claim can't be serious. There is certainly a case for a talented QB playing in Buffalo.

Not quite your league - 21,987 points and a B+ I believe. Addictive indeed.

Well then they'd be idiots. On multiple levels. First, why do we trade up at 4? Why not just wait til 6 or 7 - if the Bills have Mayfield/Jackson/Rosen at the top of their wish list? Second, you have the #1 overall pick the draft and select a guy on hoping what some other team will do later ... instead of setting your team in a direction? SO ... I guess that makes you right. The Browns are in fact, idiots. So maybe that's exactly what they are doing. If this is the case, just take Barkley first and all the jockeying around the Browns are doing is to find peace with which QB they can take comfortably. Hell, the Browns might just trade up two spots and draft 1/2. Giants can grab Chubb or move down out of 4.

No way the NY Jets pass on Baker Mayfield. The team that holds Joe Willie Namath as a God passing on taking Baker Mayfield? C'mon. No way.

Not a Jackson fan ... but as time goes on it could just be that the Rosen/Mayfield interest is a massive smoke screen for Jackson, the hidden #1 choice by the team all along.