We all knew that the Los Angeles Rams would suffer from a loss to the Arizona Cardinals, but no one could have guessed that after just one Week 2 setback, NFL commentators would be speculating about which teams would be the greatest fits for Matthew Stafford. Given the team’s 0-2 record and the status of four important offensive starters—including the top two receivers for the Rams and two interior offensive linemen—on injured reserve, ESPN’s NFL Live tackled the topic of when Les Snead should begin fielding calls regarding Stafford.
Before swinging at the 3-0 pitch, analyst Mina Kimes made sure to glance toward the dugout. She noted right away that there was no need to panic just yet because L.A. could soon get some key players back. However, when she was asked what teams should be asking for Stafford if he were to hit the trade market, she brought up the Las Vegas Raiders.
“I would like to make a presentation to the Raiders, if the Rams were to make that decision. That is an excellent defense. Imagine that Davante Adams is still among the NFL’s top receivers, and Brock Bowers is a handsome guy.I’m merely putting it out there.
Two weeks ago, when Matthew Stafford was overwhelmingly regarded as the NFC’s finest quarterback, nobody was discussing whether or not the Rams would even contemplate dealing Stafford, what they could get in return, or which clubs might be interested. This contains a clip from roughly six weeks ago for NFL Live that featured Kimes and Dan Orlovsky. Although neither of them suggested that the Rams should move Stafford now or ever, it only took two games for the Rams to begin speculating about trades—something you wouldn’t do if you thought the club would bounce back.
Remember that trading Stafford won’t be an easy assignment, regardless of whether the Rams finish 0–4 or 0–5.
You must first eliminate every team that is out of the running.
Secondly, every team that is in contention and has a favorite quarterback has to be eliminated.
Third, you have to eliminate every team that is in contention and hates their quarterback but is a marijuana user, which includes the Browns.
Fourth, the Lions must be disregarded.
Fifth, sign all of the remaining clubs and disregard anyone who has the cap space necessary to cover Stafford’s remaining $23.5 million in salary this season. Perhaps eight teams can afford Stafford, and it’s no accident that the only team that makes sense out of those eight is the Las Vegas Raiders.
Trade Stafford to the Raiders, therefore, is that correct?
They either don’t want Stafford, regardless of how much sense it could make, or they win more games with Gardner Minshew following a victory over the Ravens in Week 2. Alternatively, they might wish to bench Minshew after losing games, but are they now too far behind in the AFC to count on Stafford to contribute by the time he joins the team in Weeks 10 or 11?
The Rams would surely want to receive a solid first round choice in exchange for “the best quarterback in the NFC,” so that is another issue.
When a team realizes you plan to terminate the contract and that the trade market consists of only them and one other team, it is extremely tough to convince them to give up a first round selection.
Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to move Matthew Stafford in the middle of the season.
Additionally, since the Rams’ next five quarterbacks to face are Brock Purdy, Caleb Williams, Malik Willis, Matthew Stafford, Gardner Minshew, and Sam Darnold, it is premature to even consider trading Stafford.
This is the coach who, after a 4-12 season, led a team to the postseason. a club that, after barely entering the playoffs, ended up winning the Super Bowl that season. is a group that qualified for the playoffs once more after finishing 3-6 the previous campaign. Is it premature to discuss Stafford’s trade?
Discussing the trade of Christian Rozeboom is premature.
It’s probably never going to happen if trading Matthew Stafford isn’t something you do “next year.”
Leave a Reply