This is a good deal for both teams. Rams OL is shit, though. If Stafford gets dinged, then the Rams could easily be picking in the teens in either year. EDIT: Lions beat is reporting that there were 7-8 offers on the table and almost all included 2021 1sts.. I think the rest of the league thinks Watson doesn't hit the market.
He would be smart to do that to whatever team he wants to go to...His next team would give up much less than if he accepts a trade anywhere and it’s an all out bidding war
People don't know what the Rams future draft positions will be or what players those picks are going to turn into.
I didn’t imply what they would do in the draft, I disputed the idea that having Goff inherently takes them out of needing a QB. Considering the overwhelming opinion by pundits, and likely people in the NFL, is that Goff is a bad QB, what’s not reality is thinking the Lions somehow think otherwise but required first round picks just to take him.
At no point did I say the Lions won’t look at another QB (at some point, not in 2021) but I promise you, there is no way in hell they are trading up to 2 which is what my point actually was.
This type of situation is ideal to take someone like Trey Lance at 1.7. Let Goff take a beating for two years while you develop Lance. No dead cap charge after 2022. I'm pretty sure they can convert some future bonus money to make flipping Goff more palatable, too. Lions have more than one option here.
The Rams had to fork out at least two more picks for Detroit to take Goff and his God awful contract. But at the end of the day it doesn’t mean two shits for us because JD will not overpay for Watson. He will stick to fair value.
Lol @ everyone that thinks the Jets can’t give up 3 1st round picks for Watson after the Stafford trade.
My obvious question. Which team can offer more than 2nd overall 2021, 23rd overall 2021 + 1st 2022 and maybe 2nd 2023? I know the Dolphins are close but they would have to add more than us as 2nd + 23 > 3rd + 18
Except you have no idea whether they were going to try to trade up to 2 before acquiring Goff, so even if they don’t it doesn’t mean they didn’t simply because they now have Goff, and that was your argument — that having Goff now meant they wouldn’t trade to 2. That reasoning is what we are discussing, not whether actually they will or will not.
I’ll be honest I have no fuckin clue what you’re even trying to say and I don’t care enough to read it a third time. Go lions.
Goff's horrid contract And these 2 1st rounders are not #2 overall but late 1st round picks. The situation is a bit different, I am still going after Watson
Well I guess we’re out in Watson now.... And the lions are likely out on trading up as well now.... kinda a bad day....
It needs to repeated on every page: Even with taking Goff's horrendous contract out of the deal, the three picks the Rams gave up would not have even come CLOSE to acquiring the Jets 1st rounder this year by itself. The #2 overall pick this year, on its own, is worth [significantly] more than the "two 1sts and a 3rd" package LA just sent to Detroit.
Miami Herald Dolphins beat writer Jackson says that the Jets #2 is worth alot more than Dolphins #3 because the Jets pick guarantees you the choice of your QB not named Lawrence. Unless you are equal on 2 QB's, the #3 pick means you might have to settle for your 2nd best QB after TL.
No, idiots like you don’t understand it for the very example you just provided — nothing about our debate was a semantic debate. I challenged his reasoning and he confused that with making a declaration about the Lions. Nothing about that is semantics. Only an idiot would argue that was semantics; an idiot that also doesn’t even know what semantics is. That would be you. the fact that a few idiots, like you have proven with your post, have comprehension problems is not a condemnation on my arguments.
