[69RamFan]

I totally understand where Rob Parker is coming from....

A reporter that has been covering the Detroit Lions for decades

Second vid,,, Parker seems to think Stafford is overrated and comparing to black QBs....

[Hacksaw]

Stats lie.
Seems to me this genius should be comparing the QB'S who play for the Rams, , , or used too.
And what's his point about blacks? So Stafford has a black staff?
Hope it works out.

[sloramfan]

lame comparison... and the other talking head does exactly what i was thinking...

12 years ago was forever compared to stats lately... and that's exactly why the guy putting stat against stat is talking out of his ass...

and as i mentioned before, the other talking head calls him on it, tells him how much the NFL has changed rules, and shreds his BS take...

2019
winston = comp 60%... yds 5109... td 33.. int 30.. qb rate 83.5 16 games played
stafford = ..........64% .... ..2499 .....19 ..... 5 .............106 ....6 games played 2019

2018
winston= ...........64.5% ........2992 ...19 .......14 ............. 90......11 games played 2018
stafford = ........... 66% ........3777.... 21 .......11 ............. 89 ..... 16 games played

2017
winston = ...........63.8%...........3504 .....19 ......11..............92.......... 13 GP
stafford = ...........65.6% ..........4446......29 ......10..............99 .......... 16 GP

2016
winston = ..........60.8% .............4090.....28 ........18........... 86............ 16 GP
stafford = ..........65.3% .............4324.....24 ........10 ...........93............. 16 GP

funny how some say stafford was a int machine... maybe some are at crit times and so they stick in your mind...

i know one thing, i can so much more appreciate what A1 does for this site... that little bit of stat R&D took me forever....

go rams

slo

[NJRAMFAN1]

Busts are always good.

[AvengerRam]

Yeah... the racial angle is nonsense.

Winston stunk up the joint in 2019 with Chris Godwin, Mike Evans, Cameron Brate and OJ Howard as his receivers. That's why he lost his job.

[snackdaddy]

These people gotta say things that get attention in order to stay relevant in the business. As far as Stafford, he's generally regarded as a top ten quarterback around the league who was stuck on a bad team. Most people think the move makes the Rams better. Apparently Vegas oddsmakers think so too. I haven't watched a whole lot of Stafford over the years. But what I did watch was a scrappy quarterback who tried like hell to overcome what he had to work with. And a gun of an arm.

[Hacksaw]

Busts are always good.

I was thinkin the same thing......
SB or ( * Y * )

[Hacksaw]

Winston stunk up the joint in 2019 with Chris Godwin, Mike Evans, Cameron Brate and OJ Howard as his receivers. That's why he lost his job.

Goff stunk up the joint in 2019 with Woods, Kupp, Reynolds/VJ as his receivers,,, and met the same fate. And yet Stafford is considered an upgrade.

I don't think the SB is the only acceptable result, but obviously that would justify the trade.

[HopHead Ram]

At the end of the day, every move that every team makes is to win a SB. To say Super Bowl or bust seems a little over dramatic. You can argue until you are blue in the face on if one team gave up too much on any transaction. You can look back on the history of a given player to try to speculate what future production will look like but that too is just a guess. How many times has a player come into the current Rams organization and done worse? Not too often. A lot of these guys wind up having career years. It is more common for our players to leave and then flame out. Stafford will keep us in the conversation for a Super Bowl at least for the next 2-3 years (if we decide to extend him a bit). That alone makes the trade worth it. We suffered for so many years as one of the worst teams, I'm loving the trajectory this team is on and as long as we continue to strive to always get better, no trade is truly a bust...and no talking head can convince me otherwise.

[PARAM]

At the end of the day, every move that every team makes is to win a SB. To say Super Bowl or bust seems a little over dramatic. You can argue until you are blue in the face on if one team gave up too much on any transaction. You can look back on the history of a given player to try to speculate what future production will look like but that too is just a guess. How many times has a player come into the current Rams organization and done worse? Not too often. A lot of these guys wind up having career years. It is more common for our players to leave and then flame out. Stafford will keep us in the conversation for a Super Bowl at least for the next 2-3 years (if we decide to extend him a bit). That alone makes the trade worth it. We suffered for so many years as one of the worst teams, I'm loving the trajectory this team is on and as long as we continue to strive to always get better, no trade is truly a bust...and no talking head can convince me otherwise.

Good post.

I disagree with one thing though. "Every move any team makes is to make the Superbowl". Yeah, that should be true. But there have been teams happy to make a buck. In other words, they do enough to keep the team competitive (read: asses in seats) without over spending for a SB title. The Eagles previous owner was accused of that approach and Lurie for a long while too. When they went out and got T.O. in 2004, that view changed as they made the Superbowl and were competetive against the Patriots. Then after the loss, it wasn't Lurie but McNabb who took the heat. Seems in the 4th quarter of a close game, he puked in the huddle. That nugget came courtesy of Owens and was intended, it seemed, to disparage McNabb. Just goes to show, it doesn't matter whether you're all in or not, what ever happens is the QBs fault!!!

Years ago, teams would try to "build" a Superbowl/Championship squad. A group that would be a contender year in and year out. So sure, every move was to that end. But with the way things are today, you can't keep them all (like you used to be able to do) because of free agency. So if you're close, sometimes a move (or two) gives the impression you're all in for the Superbowl. And if you're not close but simply "in the picture" every year, it can be a very profitable situation for ownership. So when a team trades up in the first round to grab a kid they're sure can be their franchise QB, they're going all in. Ironically, 5 years later, after a Superbowl loss, a huge contract extension and two mediocre seasons (for him), they trade him away for a more experienced QB, they're going all in again. It's all about the QB!!!!

Well the Rams certainly seem like a team always focused on a Superbowl. The Jets, Lions and Jaguars are too but it doesn't always look that way. And in another case of irony, many Lions fans believe they've gone all in with this trade! Who'd a thunk it????