C.Biscuit97 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, whatdrought said: You're asking if we want 4 blue chip players (or players who are looking to turn into blue chipers) on cheap deals and a rotational piece vs. 3 blue chip players making giant contracts? It's not a question of if they're getting value, it's a question of the sustainability of buying expensive players while getting rid of the #1 way of adding cheap players. Of course if all of our guys turn out to blue chippers, we will have some cap issues as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Just now, NewEra said: The rams are super bowl or bust. The only thing that matters to them over the next 1-2 years is bringing home a title. They are closer to that with Ramsey as opposed to not having Ramsey. replacing peters with Ramsey is a HUGE upgrade. Yep. That's definitely what they're doing, and they are closer for having Ramsey, but the problem is that I don't think they were all that close to begin with. They have massive issues and would likely have been better off keeping those picks and the money and trying to build a more solid foundation to lengthen their time to compete. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenorthremembers Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, whatdrought said: You're asking if we want 4 blue chip players (or players who are looking to turn into blue chipers) on cheap deals and a rotational piece vs. 3 blue chip players making giant contracts? It's not a question of if they're getting value, it's a question of the sustainability of buying expensive players while getting rid of the #1 way of adding cheap players. No I am asking if you want two proven blue chip players or 1 proven blue chip players and 3 maybes. Edmunds, Allen, and Oliver are all potential. None of them have proven a thing in the league to this point. Honestly, its kind of a push. Do you want 100k or 50k with three more chances at 200k? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Of course if all of our guys turn out to blue chippers, we will have some cap issues as well. True enough, but its spread out over 5 years as opposed to all at once. And the idea is that you use draft picks to be replacing guys as they become blue chippers so you aren't forced to keep them if you can't do it. That's the hardest part of it- knowing when to keep the money, or when to keep the players. The Seahawks, who are pretty good right now, had those down years after the SB loss cause they struggled to know how to move on from stars, but they weren't able to pay everyone. Some of that is the natural ebb and flow of the NFL, some of it is management difficulties. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: No I am asking if you want two proven blue chip players or 1 proven blue chip players and 3 maybes. Edmunds, Allen, and Oliver are all potential. None of them have proven a thing in the league to this point. Honestly, its kind of a push. Do you want 100k or 50k with three more chances at 200k? 50k for sure. Even if the chance to hit on the 200k is 25% our expected value is the 100k. I would argue Oliver and Edmunds are better than 25% to reach great potential. Edmunds, if he keeps up his play, is already there. Edited October 16, 2019 by Bills2ref Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Just now, whatdrought said: True enough, but its spread out over 5 years as opposed to all at once. And the idea is that you use draft picks to be replacing guys as they become blue chippers so you aren't forced to keep them if you can't do it. That's the hardest part of it- knowing when to keep the money, or when to keep the players. The Seahawks, who are pretty good right now, had those down years after the SB loss cause they struggled to know how to move on from stars, but they weren't able to pay everyone. Some of that is the natural ebb and flow of the NFL, some of it is management difficulties. Good post and I agree. Seattle is only good now because Wilson turned out to be a top 5 qb. It could have been a Flacco situation there otherwise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said: No I am asking if you want two proven blue chip players or 1 proven blue chip players and 3 maybes. Edmunds, Allen, and Oliver are all potential. None of them have proven a thing in the league to this point. Honestly, its kind of a push. Do you want 100k or 50k with three more chances at 200k? Edmunds is a blue chipper- he's still growing but in the past 2 months he's been a top 5 off-ball backer. Allen and Oliver both look like good players who can be great players. I don't think it's a push for two reasons- 1, we're building this team with these guys intentionally. We know them, we (the staff) believe them to be blue-chip players who are going to be top of their position groups. That's how you build a contending team. Secondly, I think the Bills model is better because we have money. We'll know in the next 2-3 years if these guys are the blue chipper we think they are- and then we'll have money to pay them, or money and draft picks to move on from them as needed. It's less about the actual players, and more about the team building philosophy. 4 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Good post and I agree. Seattle is only good now because Wilson turned out to be a top 5 qb. It could have been a Flacco situation there otherwise. Yup, which has helped them keep relevant and has given them a building point for the soft rebuild that they just did. Carrol has been really impressive the past couple years- it looked like he would retire when the strength of that roster was gone, but he's retooled and they look like a team that could be in the mix for February. Having what I would argue is the best QB in the league doesn't hurt one bit. Edited October 16, 2019 by whatdrought 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Yep. That's definitely what they're doing, and they are closer for having Ramsey, but the problem is that I don't think they were all that close to begin with. They have massive issues and would likely have been better off keeping those picks and the money and trying to build a more solid foundation to lengthen their time to compete. Tell that to the owner of the team that lost the SB last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: Edmunds is a blue chipper- he's still growing but in the past 2 months he's been a top 5 off-ball backer. Allen and Oliver both look like good players who can be great players. I don't think it's a push for two reasons- 1, we're building this team with these guys intentionally. We know them, we (the staff) believe them to be blue-chip players who are going to be top of their position groups. That's how you build a contending team. Secondly, I think the Bills model is better because we have money. We'll know in the next 2-3 years if these guys are the blue chipper we think they are- and then we'll have money to pay them, or money and draft picks to move on from them as needed. It's less about the actual players, and more about the team building philosophy. Allen has a long way to go still. Not ready to say he’s good until he has more tds than ints. I know our expectations for qb has been driven to the ground for the last 20 years but I’m going to need more than a 75 qb rating before I say he’s good. But the potential certainly is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, NewEra said: Tell that to the owner of the team that lost the SB last year I will. I'll also tell him that getting to the Superbowl at all is about 80% chance, and 20% having a great team and that in order to try and win a superbowl, the best bet is to be competitive each and every year by building a good team with great components, instead of going all in on having a team that's "great" for 2 years. This really isn't that difficult to see played out... The Patriots are the blueprint. They have never done anything in year x that compromises their ability to build a solid team in year y or z- even if it gives them an edge in year x. It's all relative until we see how the Rams turn out, but my guess on that would be under 10 wins and not playing past the first round of the playoffs. I could be way off, we'll see. 4 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Allen has a long way to go still. Not ready to say he’s good until he has more tds than ints. I know our expectations for qb has been driven to the ground for the last 20 years but I’m going to need more than a 75 qb rating before I say he’s good. But the potential certainly is there. It's true, and that's unfortunately the crap shoot that is team building in the NFL- do everything right and if 1 23 year old kid doesn't turn into a star, it's all worthless. That being said, I like Allen's potential and I think he'll get there, and when he does, I think we'll have one of the best all around rosters in the NFL. Edited October 16, 2019 by whatdrought 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenorthremembers Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: Edmunds is a blue chipper- he's still growing but in the past 2 months he's been a top 5 off-ball backer. Allen and Oliver both look like good players who can be great players. I don't think it's a push for two reasons- 1, we're building this team with these guys intentionally. We know them, we (the staff) believe them to be blue-chip players who are going to be top of their position groups. That's how you build a contending team. Secondly, I think the Bills model is better because we have money. We'll know in the next 2-3 years if these guys are the blue chipper we think they are- and then we'll have money to pay them, or money and draft picks to move on from them as needed. It's less about the actual players, and more about the team building philosophy. I understand the team building thing and I prefer the way the Bills are going about. However, I think the Rams have thought this out pretty well in terms of selling out to win games with Goff. They are building the best team they can for the next two years with Goff. I think their plan is to go all in with Goff this year and next. The way they set his and Gurley's contract up, they have outs on both contracts in 2021. If they designate Goff as a Post June 1st cut in 2021, they only have 15 million in dead cap with 78.5 million dollars in saving over the last three years of the contract. It's the same for Gurley, they have him for this year and next, but if they designate his as a post June 1st cut in 2021 they have 8.4 Million in Dead Cap with over 40 million dollars in cap savings on the last three years of his contract. They seem to have a pretty decent five year plan. Load up on talent to go all in between 2018-2021, and if they fail they can reload at QB in the 2022 draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, thenorthremembers said: I understand the team building thing and I prefer the way the Bills are going about. However, I think the Rams have thought this out pretty well in terms of selling out to win games with Goff. They are building the best team they can for the next two years with Goff. I think their plan is to go all in with Goff this year and next. The way they set his and Gurley's contract up, they have outs on both contracts in 2021. If they designate Goff as a Post June 1st cut in 2021, they only have 15 million in dead cap with 78.5 million dollars in saving over the last three years of the contract. It's the same for Gurley, they have him for this year and next, but if they designate his as a post June 1st cut in 2021 they have 8.4 Million in Dead Cap with over 40 million dollars in cap savings on the last three years of his contract. They seem to have a pretty decent five year plan. Load up on talent to go all in between 2018-2021, and if they fail they can reload at QB in the 2022 draft. It's not a bad idea and it could work for them... The place it gets risky is if you aren't hitting on later picks and you have no depth/no talent on your team by the time you're ready to reboot and you end up having to do a full Dolphin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenorthremembers Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, whatdrought said: It's not a bad idea and it could work for them... The place it gets risky is if you aren't hitting on later picks and you have no depth/no talent on your team by the time you're ready to reboot and you end up having to do a full Dolphin. I wouldnt be so sure thats not the 2022 plan. My guess is they are betting on themselves not to fail. Snead and McVay dont come across as guys who have little faith in their plans. Probably one of McVay's weaknesses as a coach, it sure was in the superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 29 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I will. I'll also tell him that getting to the Superbowl at all is about 80% chance, and 20% having a great team and that in order to try and win a superbowl, the best bet is to be competitive each and every year by building a good team with great components, instead of going all in on having a team that's "great" for 2 years. This really isn't that difficult to see played out... The Patriots are the blueprint. They have never done anything in year x that compromises their ability to build a solid team in year y or z- even if it gives them an edge in year x. It's all relative until we see how the Rams turn out, but my guess on that would be under 10 wins and not playing past the first round of the playoffs. I could be way off, we'll see. It's true, and that's unfortunately the crap shoot that is team building in the NFL- do everything right and if 1 23 year old kid doesn't turn into a star, it's all worthless. That being said, I like Allen's potential and I think he'll get there, and when he does, I think we'll have one of the best all around rosters in the NFL. Having the best coach and best QB ever on the same team is the blueprint? Well, they aren’t ever going to achieve that with Goff under center, so might as well try a new route Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 minute ago, NewEra said: Having the best coach and best QB ever on the same team is the blueprint? Well, they aren’t ever going to achieve that with Goff under center, so might as well try a new route It doesn't hurt, but it's also relative. You become the best coach and QB by winning. You win by being competitive year after year. You become competitive year after year by not leveraging the future for the now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 1 hour ago, C.Biscuit97 said: Of course if all of our guys turn out to blue chippers, we will have some cap issues as well. Not if they continue to draft and sign FAs well. There is a ton of depth on this roster right now as evidenced by guys getting claimed and traded at the end of PS. Its one of the reasons the Patriots are so successful every year. They always have some UDFA start at a key position and play well for peanuts Not unlike Levi Wallace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Hope he can block too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Boo Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 Two very late 1st round picks for a top 3 DB, to a team that is in "win now" mode. Not a bad trade at all. 2 hours ago, Bills2ref said: The big difference is the cap space. I’m too lazy to look it up, but nearly certain all 5 of those Bills players combined salary equals less than the salary of Goff alone. Probably less cap than what Ramsey will command as well. That’s the big thing. Sure using 5 1st rounders for a starting QB, top CB and top WR is good value in a vacuum. But you also have to factor in the opportunity cost of losing about 65 million in cap to Goff, Cooks and Ramsey. But the Rams are perennial Super Bowl contenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In Summary Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 16 hours ago, JaCrispy said: No CB is worth that imo I so agree. Only give two 1st round picks for a QB and only because of the absolute necessity of having a top 16 QB if you want to be a contender. Poor use a draft capital by LA IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCBills Posted October 16, 2019 Share Posted October 16, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Chicken Boo said: Two very late 1st round picks for a top 3 DB, to a team that is in "win now" mode. Not a bad trade at all. But the Rams are perennial Super Bowl contenders. Are we sure those 1st rounders will be "very late". NFC is tough and they're currently 2 games back of San Fran and Seattle in their own division. Nevermind the fact they have a ton of money tied up in two guys with the jury out on their ability... Goff/Gurley. Edited October 16, 2019 by SCBills 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts