CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
For now, we can agree the trade helped the Rams.I guess I see a team going "all in" as paying a price rather than winning or losing a trade. Sure you pay that price to win a SB not just be in one but being in one is pretty great. I guess Brady and Manning are recent examples but drop-shipping a QB into a team in the off season is a pretty risky proposition and adding a SB or bust goal to the equation, even more so.
‘I’m just looking at the big picture. If they lose the SB, then getting Stafford simply cost them Goff & 2 firsts only to be in the same position they were in with Goff, right?
Getting there isn’t ever the goal. Winning it is the goal. The only thing getting there & losing achieves is potentially expanding your fan-base (McVay’s personality should help to off-set that) and losing 2 first round picks.
The Rams went all-in by sacrificing future drafts. Contrast with the Packers who went all-in by sacrificing future cap space. Both took a shot - the Rams succeeded as did the Bucs last season, but I don't think anyone can deny there is a fair bit of luck involved once you get to the playoffs. My personal view is that the best NFL strategy for success is to build a team that can make the playoffs, because it seems like somewhat of a crap-shoot from there. I've seen the Packers lose multiple playoff games as home favorites over the past 20 years, whereas their success (in terms of winning a Lombardi) came when they played 3 road games as a wild card. This year we have two #4 seeds in the Superbowl, each of whom got there through a highly improbable series of results. Totally deserved and I'm happy for both, but I think the point stands.