Rochesterfan

The problem as I see it is not with either the player or the return - it is where in the the contract the player is and how your team is made. Ramsey being in the last year of his contract and wanting (as he has stated) to be the top paid CB puts a ton of pressure on the front office to make that happen. They already have the highest paid DT, RB, and QB for next year and one of the highest paid WRs. Add to that 17-20 million for a CB and you will potentially have 5 guys taking up 112+ million of your salary cap next year. That is close to 60% of your cap space on 5 guys. ? They also have a ton of FAs that they will potentially lose after the season and part of their decline this year (and yes they have declined from last year - some what significantly) was the loss of O-Line and D-Line talent due to paying their other top players. I think realistically they have this year and they are good enough to make a run, but with their recent struggles and losing 2 division games and a 3rd NFC game - it looks like a long road to get into and win again this year. Then they lose more quality players and depth and even with top end talent they will begin to decline faster and faster. I get the sentiment of the Rams got talent in the trades, but the NFL is about the team and team is about more than 5-6 guys taking up most of your cap.

The biggest issue I see @NoSaint is with the Sammy trade they expected to be able to resign him, but he waited and got a better deal elsewhere. That caused the Rams to miss out on some FA WR - then then had to panic and trade an additional 1st for Cooks and then overpay for him. They did not seem to learn because now they have traded for Ramsey, but his contract is still up after this year. This is like doubling down on Watkins because of what they gave up. The Rams have to be willing to pony up top CB money to keep him (and hope he does not make it to the FA market) and although he makes them much better the teams that they are behind in that division both are top 10 in rushing offense and have beat the Rams already. The signing of Cooks and the contracts to Gurley, Donald, and Goff - lead to additional Cap decisions to let some quality on the Oline go this year. If they sign Ramsey to a huge, long term deal - which they can do if they spread it out right - they are going to lose even more quality and depth next year. If they make him the highest paid at 17 - 20 million per and make it work out - they will lose guys like Fowler, Whitworth, Brockers, Talib, Etc. It really gives them a tight window with their talent to this year. They will then have to let some or most of their FAs go and replace them with lower end players and the overall team depth gets worse. I think you are already seeing the effect this year with their O-line being significantly worse and Goff and the running game looking worse. They also lack the resources to address the issue and draft guys to fill those roles. I don’t hate the move if they can win the SB this year, but I think it begins to shut their window for being an elite team to this year and then they will have a bunch of superstars with little depth and they begin to fade to middle of the road.

Like Watkins - that cost them a bunch and they still lost him. Did not recover the sunk costs. Plus it led to a panic trade of a first for a WR the next year.

At least we understand the earlier trade. Just insane to pay that much for a CB. Rams FO is crazy with the trades of picks.

I really do not get it sometimes. The Rams which seem weak on CBs the last few weeks - trade a CB to the Ravens. The Browns whose O-Line has been terrible and is its biggest weakness trades a center to the Rams. I seems both teams just doubled down on their weakest parts and why do team want an unused player from a weak spot on another team. Seems like the Zay trade all over again. Weak Spot we trade away - what are the other teams expecting.

This is blatantly untrue. There were 3 straight calls against the NYJs on the drive - all of them correct. Then there were 2 straight calls against Dallas, both of which were correct. That put Dallas in a 1st and 27 and then Jamal Adams was overly aggressive and got a call against him. The calls were not bad calls and for the most part they were not even questionable. I am not sure what the Refs are supposed to do - the Jets were all over the receiver long before the ball arrived. Are they supposed to ignore it because they have flagged the other team already a couple of times. I get it there are some very questionable calls, but try an suggest it was inappropriate to flag the Jets on that drive or they were trying to help the Cowboys - ignores logic and the fact that 2 of the calls went against Dallas.

To me it isn’t the topic - it is the OP dropping the thread and then disappearing. If you ( @GunnerBill) started the thread - gave your opinions and then discussed it back and forth - the thread has meaning to you. This poster in his last 5 posts - has started at least 3 threads and never once followed up or spoke again on it. It has been left to you to decide what he is asking and how you want to interpret the question. For me - I will interpret it my own way. I would love it if Josh is by far the best and longest lasting QB in his draft class. That is how I see Stafford. The numbers do not matter - he ends up by far as the most successful QB in that class and if I can say that about Josh - then I will be happy because they made the right choice. Other than that - the stats will come or not, the wins will continue, I just want him to far exceed any other QB in that draft.

I will respond to the troll with quote by @Chandler#81 in the last thread of his that he closed about an immature JA that the OP does not think has IT. The OP does not seem to care drops a turd and leaves with no opinion. Personally I think it is ridiculous at this point - I would not mind the longevity because that means he is good - want more from the team. From his previous threads: Report post Posted September 4 Not surprisingly, the OP dropped this bomb of a thread 8 hours ago, then quickly disappeared and hasn’t returned. He/She now won’t return for a month. If you start a thread, stay with the thread. Interact with posters views on your topic. The extremes are this crapfest and @Alphadawg7‘s 80 pager on Zay. He stayed with it as a mature person should. This thread -and the OP- gets flushed down the commode.

It was not a challenge - the issue seems to be if there was some question about replay or NY getting involved. There was a turn-over - so although they say there was no “replay review” was not involved - with the turnover - replay and NY can be involved. They ruled it as Pass Interference and there is a rule to allow that to b discussed and overturned. They do not have the power to then go back and reverse the call and say it should have been holding. I think if they had all gotten together and made that choice before moving the ball - it might have been ok, but I do not think after enforcement they can just arbitrarily decide to go back and call it holding. The problem as I see it (and this was alluded to by guys like Steratore in preseason) is the rule is not designed to get a call right as written, because you can not correct an obvious foul for holding, illegal contact, etc. - it is designed to verify calls as made on the field or to catch blatant misses and even that has been up for debate with things like Thursdays missed PI call live and on review.

Because the correct call as the ref announced was probably holding, but that was not what was called and that is not reviewable because the coaches and GMs in their wisdom created a bad rule that does not work. The PI was incorrect and could be reviewed and overturned.

That is not correct though - it was a turnover with a penalty- all turnovers are automatically reviewed. I agree they should not be looking at PI, but the coaches and GMs decided they wanted PI reviewed - so on a turnover PI can be reviewed as part of the turnover. If they had ruled holding or illegal contact and this occurred - I would cry foul, but because it was called PI and a turnover - it is certainly up for review and discussion. The replay official should have buzzed down to discuss and if there was an issue - it should go to NY for clarification. The problem is the coaches and GMs on the competition committee do not think about impact they saw the NO play and way over reacted and it leads to this. I believe there are many issues because they cannot review holding or illegal contact - so if that had been called - no review and the play is reversed. Additionally if the ball had not been intercepted or a TD scored - the PI would have need to been challenged to get a review, but in this case they actually did the correct thing. The problem is all with the wrong call on Kelce - should have been defensive holding and all of this goes away.

All this tech would just lead to more issues. If the contact is holding the force might be negative. It could be contact from someone going up to make a play. The contact could be initiated by the offensive player. You are still subject 100% to someone having to look and then try to interpret the data. Sensors on the field and in the ball - you still have to determine down by contact or when events occurred. Looking at force - for example is a player down - well if the player is not hitting the ground - you might mis-spot the ball especially near the goal line. The sensors in the ball also need to look in regards to balls shape and how it is being held. There are limited things where the tech could help, but you are asking for more stoppages to look at the data and even worse a flag coming out 20 seconds after a play as the other team is getting ready to snap the next play. You think it is bad now - the conspiracy theories will go through the roof as a questionable play is suddenly flagged because of questionable tech data - that is not verifiable by the home audience or the people in the stadium.

Where are you getting your Coffee? I am not sure, but if you go to Starbucks - that would mean the Browns are worth about 6 bucks. LOL

No, No, No, and No to Rex in Washington. Come on guys - Cleveland is where Rex should go. He and Baker already in full communication across the Media. Perfect Fit!

I just love the fact that there was no media present - so it is not designed to be a photo op. It is real. I also love two small schools - typically groups that get ignored by high level players and here is a QB on his bye week making their entire year. GREAT JOB!

Very little take away - more like stupid excuses to click on their links. Wish you could undo clicks for poor lists like this.

That is totally incorrect and has been proven so far this year - Their play calling has been the same - the execution has been poor. They throw the ball at a similar percentage rate and have not gone to the run run pass punt or any traditional conservative play calling motifs. Please explain how they are very very conservative when they have a 10 point lead - I am very interested to understand your vision on this.

Not sure I get these responses. The Bills have covered in 4 out of 5 games and won 2 outright as an underdog. Cincinnati is the only game they did not cover and it was by 2 points in a game they had covered for 3/4 ths of the game. They were not expected to blow anyone out until now. Vegas thought they would be close games and they were.

Great a third useless thread - I can’t wait until next week.

No one is arguing that Mayfield was not bad, but just like NE and KC when winning big - pulling your QB does not mean the same thing as benching. Words have meanings and being benched means he was pulled because of his play and the back-up is playing the rest of the game you are trying to win - not one drive at the end of a 4 score blow out. Being benched does not meaning being pulled in a blowout even if it totally your fault for the blow out. Yes - other players are still on the field, but coaches can’t forfeit- so you need people out there. They had back-ups in at QB and WR to protect their investments. I honestly could not figure out why they let Chubb run the ball as he has been their entire offense, but I think Freddie is totally overmatched as a coach and really is not on top of things.

Ahh - so I get it - that means the Pats have benched Tom Brady several times this year as with big leads the NE offense is on the Field and Brady is on the bench - now I get it. I would have thought one of the best QBs of all time would not be repeatedly benched, but apparently NE when winning decides it is better to bench him. You are correct that he was not on the field in an game they were not winning and could not win for the last drive against a team that was trying to kill him. I would not say benched because if that was a 1 score game and they had a chance to win or tie - my guess is Mayfield is out there. He was replaced to protect him from injury. Kitchens would be getting destroyed if anything had happened to Baker on that last drive - just as he should be getting destroyed for letting Beckham return a punt down multiple scores where he ends up getting smacked around and fumbling.

I don’t think him not playing the last series constitutes a benching. They were blown out and he may suck or may have read his press clippings, but he was not really benched.

I don’t disagree with that - I would love to see the cut block eliminated just about everywhere for safety, but it has real uses. The only other thing that I would say is maybe after the penalty- Milano attacks that blitz differently. Maybe instead of the full tilt attack - that opened him up to the hit. He rushes a bit more under control to jump or better avoid the RB - lessening the chance he ends up flying through the air and landing there. In this case it was a double whammy - he took a nasty tumble and got flagged. If it was just the hit, but he got to hit the QB with no penalty - then the players are more likely to dive that way opening themselves, the QBs, and the blockers up to more potential big hits and injury. I feel bad for Milano because I was obvious that he was just the victim of the circumstance and the play was not dirty in any way, but I can also understand still calling it a foul to protect the player.

I understand, but the NFL seems to disagree as they called it a penalty and it gets called like that the majority of times a QB is hit low. You can say you do not agree, but if it is called a penalty the majority of the times it happens - then the obvious guidance behind the rules must be the NFL deems that a penalty. There are a lot of penalties I do not agree with or think are ticky-Tac, but if they get called most of the time - then what I think is unimportant because the league has decided to call it that way - until they change it up with new guidance. It is legal to cut block him at this time.

It should not prevent blitzing - why would they want to prevent blitzing? They want the defenders attacking, but under control. You had guys like JP Losman, Carson Palmer, and most famously Tom Brady get taken out by defenders that ended up hitting the QB low around the knees. They wanted to lessen that chance - so they started making it illegal to hit a QB in the pocket down low and put a lot of guidance around that. It seems to have helped as knee injuries to the QB are less frequent- especially in the pocket. I think that penalizing the defender seems to have helped, but in the end sometimes things happen and guys get hurt, but working to have them hit in the body increases the protection.