Rams Going All In While QB is On Rookie Deal; Will it Pay Off?
The Rams have the ability to make splash moves while their QB is on a rookie contract, but these short-term gains have long-term consequences.
By TimBackes
The Los Angeles Rams have undoubtedly had the most interesting offseason of any team in the NFL so far.
Here are just a few of the big names they’ve acquired through free agency and trades this offseason: DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Marcus Peters, CB Aqib Talib, CB Sam Shields, WR Brandin Cooks. Not to mention a variety of other role players the team has brought in.
These are all pro bowl caliber players (with an asterisk for Shields, who is an unknown quantity at this point). The Rams were aggressive in bringing most of them in, in many cases paying out large contracts or trading away starters and high draft picks.
The last 20-plus years have provided us with plenty of examples of teams that were crowned offseason champions only to flame out once the actual season started.
What interests me is not whether the Rams will actually manage to compete for a championship this year, but if whether the way they’re aggressively building their team will have any influence on how other teams with young quarterbacks do it in the future.
Get it while your QB is cheap
The Rams’ patience with Jared Goff paid off in 2017. After an abysmal rookie year, Goff looked like every bit the part of a former #1 overall pick under the tutelage of new head coach and offensive specialist Sean McVay. The leaps and bounds Goff made from his previous season were astronomical—he scarcely looked like the same player out there.
The Rams managed to win the division and play a playoff game, bowing out in a hard-fought game against the Atlanta Falcons. It was only one year, but clearly it was enough for the Rams to believe they have something special in Goff, and to want to make an aggressive push for a championship.
Not all teams have the luxury of being able to make the kinds of moves the Rams are making. But with Goff still on a rookie QB contract for likely another three years (assuming the Rams exercise the fifth year option on Goff’s contract, which they’d be foolish not to), they have much more room to maneuver than teams that have already given their franchise quarterbacks big extended contracts.
Years ago, teams used to draft quarterbacks in the first round with the hope they’d be able to sit and develop for a couple years before taking the reins of the franchise.
These days, however, most first-round quarterbacks are thrown into the fire almost immediately, and there is tremendous pressure on them to show they are worth investing in.
The rookie wage scale is still a relatively new feature in the NFL, having been implemented in the 2011 season. The question is this—now that teams have a little bit of insurance in the form of wage caps for their highly drafted QBs early in their careers, will more teams take an aggressive approach like the Rams before their cap space gets chewed up by their quarterback?
Make no mistake—the Rams are playing a risky game here, and could potentially be trading their ability to contend long into the future for a shot at a championship within the next year or two.
If more teams start to follow the same philosophy while their quarterbacks are young, what will this do to teams’ abilities to stay in the title hunt for longer than several years? Will we start to have more regular turnover at the top of divisions around the league?
It’ll be interesting to see how it shakes out for the Rams. The Packers have been able to stay in the hunt for a long time, because they’ve been rather prudent financially while also paying their superstar QB.
It’s a unique situation for Los Angeles to be in, and their success or failure could prove influential on the rest of the league.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Tim Backes is a lifelong Packer fan and a contributor to CheeseheadTV. Follow him on Twitter @timbackes for his Packer takes, random musings and Untappd beer check-ins.
__________________________
Comments (46)
TKWorldWide
April 06, 2018 at 05:58 am
Maybe.
4thand1
April 06, 2018 at 06:34 am
Oh the luxury of having a QB on a rookie deal. Wouldn't it be something if Suh has a moment in practice and plants Goff's head in the turf, knocking him out for the season.
RCPackerFan
April 06, 2018 at 07:07 am
While the Rams are basically pushing all their chips in on the year it may work out well for them or it may blow up in their face too. It all will revolve around whether or not Goff takes the next step.
They brought in a lot of good players, but also brought in a lot of big personalities. It could take just 1 loss and the team will be lost for the year.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the Rams this year.
dobber
April 06, 2018 at 07:19 am
They have to have a lot of trust that Sean McVay can handle all of it...
RCPackerFan
April 06, 2018 at 07:24 am
They better hope he can.
Suh, Peters, Talib are all guys who have had issues with being able to control themselves.
cuervo
April 06, 2018 at 09:26 am
I seem to remember the Eagles and their "Dream Team" a number of years back....that was a disaster. Good teams consist of more than just having good players.
RCPackerFan
April 06, 2018 at 10:09 am
The 'dream team' is one of the first things that I think of when people talk about the Rams and the moves they make.
Maybe it will work out for them, maybe it wont'.
Minniman
April 06, 2018 at 01:28 pm
Dobber, with so many defensive "named" players in this list, I wonder if it's more a case of Sean McVay hopes that Wade Phillips can handle them!
They've certainly assembled an (on-paper) impressive defense - especially stiffening their D-line...... Suh AND Aaron Donald....... I'm looking forward to seeing that in action.
flackcatcher
April 06, 2018 at 11:14 am
That is one very dangerous personal situation the Rams have set up. There are more than a couple of out and out time bombs on that team. Either the Rams front office is really gutsy, or just flat out crazy. I can't decide which.
Thegreatreynoldo
April 06, 2018 at 12:13 pm
From a salary cap standpoint, yes, LAR is going all in. They have $10M in official salary cap space, but negative $3M when everything comes due. OTOH, Suh, Cooks, and Shields are on one-year deals (LAR is trying to extend Cooks though), Aquib and Peters can both be cut with no dead money. They do have $99M in cap space for 2019 but they need to re-sign Joyner, Aaron Donald, Suh, OG Safford, CB Webster, Easly, Havenstein, maybe others since I am not that familiar with their team.
flackcatcher
April 08, 2018 at 12:46 am
I suspected as much TGR. Some of these guys (like Shields) are on some sort of 'show me' deal, and could be gone before the season starts. Team wise, there are more than a few 'hot heads' on that team. And as we saw last year with the Packers, it does not take much to wreak a team in the locker room.
NickPerry
April 06, 2018 at 07:09 am
The Rams are doing exactly what I would hope the Packers would do if Rodgers was gone and retired and they had their next "Franchise QB" already starting and in place on his rookie deal. I would hope the Packers would GO FOR IT, especially the way the Rams have gone about it this season. Yes they've given up some draft capital but they've also obtained Talib, Peters, and Cooks for a few draft picks plus added Suh, Shields, and others to an already strong team
I understand the Rams have brought in 3 problem child's in Suh, Peters, and Talib but if your being 100% honest with yourself there's not one Packers fan who wouldn't be doing back-flips and front-flips if the Packers had done the same thing. Well with Talib and Peters at least.
Wade Phillips has a reputation of pitting his defense against the teams offense. He's not afraid to throw his teams offense under the bus if he doesn't think the offense is doing their part. Throw in Peters, Talib, and Suh to that mix and it will be interesting in Los Angeles if Geoff and Gurley don't match their 2017 seasons. The Rams played a last place schedule and were able to sneak up on teams last season. Even though they've gotten better for 2018 on paper at least, they won't be sneaking up on anyone this year.
Stay tuned...
4thand1
April 06, 2018 at 07:13 am
Aaron Donald may just say f-u and decide to hold out. You have a young super star who already isn't happy with his rookie contract and the team is throwing money around on FA's.
John Ramble Kirk
April 06, 2018 at 07:41 am
Kudos, NP. Exactly what I would hope for next season for us even with our QB on a likely prodigious contract given our ability to have tons of cap space.
As for the Rams, I don't trust Goff. If Rodgers had that same situation it would be considered a major disappointment if they didn't win it all. I don't know that you can say that about the Rams with Goff.
The long term consequence is way overblown. That's a hedge comment to protect the idea that what the Packers do is somehow smarter. The ratonalizing that has happened over the last 10+ years has broken spirits and the true expectation of results. Short term deals don't wreck your cap.
You either go for it or you make excuses for why you don't.
dobber
April 06, 2018 at 09:38 am
"Short term deals don't wreck your cap."
I think this hits the mark. Peters is in his last year on his rookie deal with an option to go. Suh is on a one-year deal. Talib has, like, 3 years left on his deal, but is no hit to the cap if they cut him after 2018. Cooks is in his option year. As you look around, they aren't mortgaging the ranch on this. They've lost some draft capital, but they can bring some guys back if the fit is right.
Andrew Lloyd Peth
April 06, 2018 at 10:41 am
Your comment--which is excellent, by the way--begs the question, "Should Green Bay consider starting over rather than competing with young QB teams like LA and Philly?"
I'm not suggesting we do; just looking at the math. What if, for instance, we could get Cleveland's top 2 picks--#1 and #4--for Rodgers? He's a generational sure thing, whereas draft picks aren't certain. With those 2 picks we could choose, say, Josh Allen and Saquon Barkley. Or, if the team feels Kiser will improve from playing on a bad team last year, we could take Barkley and either Quenton Nelson or Bradley Chubb. (I'd go with the Allen-Barkley option)
Point is, as great as Rodgers is, he's going to take about $32 million/year out of our cap (Rodgers won't do a team-friendly Brady deal). Having watched a deep Philly team win it all with a backup QB, and seeing other teams loading up, that seems unlikely to produce another Super Bowl run.
What say you?
Finwiz
April 06, 2018 at 10:40 am
That's a HUGE gamble, getting rid of a known hall of fame QB, arguably still in the prime of his career.
This is a known product you'd be trading, and essentially waiving the "white flag" and saying you weren't going to be competitive for 3-4 years.
Those 2 picks have a high degree of probability to be busts, as we've seen many times in the NFL.
Let's look at the NE example for a corroborating point of view....do you see them having traded Brady at any point in the last 5 years, even though he's up there in age, and had a competent backup in Garrapolo? There's been rumors that Billichick wanted to, but ultimately they didn't. They're still a contender every year because the QB is a once in a generation talent.
I'd say you pretty much have to fit Rodgers in under the cap for the next 4-5 years and fill in pieces around him where possible. This is life in the NFL with star players.
Andrew Lloyd Peth
April 06, 2018 at 10:53 am
I know it's a gamble, Fin, but there are 2 big differences between Green Bay and New England:
1. Tom Brady purposefully takes below-market deals to help his team maintain championship talent throughout the roster. Rodgers likely won't do this.
2. The Patriots roster hasn't been decimated by the last 4-5 years of Ted Thompson's career.
So not only do the Patriots have a far more talented roster throughout, but they also have a QB providing much more cap help.
We need a rebuild; they need nothing.
Also, I don't think it would take us 3-4 years before competing. I think we'd be very, very dangerous by 2019, with a terrific young talent base and LOADS of cap room for key FA's.
Lare
April 06, 2018 at 11:13 am
Ron Wolf went and got his MVP quarterback when he became GM of the Packers. Ted Thompson went and got his MVP quarterback when he became GM of the Packers. Will Gutekunst follow suit?
dobber
April 06, 2018 at 12:34 pm
"2. The Patriots roster hasn't been decimated by the last 4-5 years of Ted Thompson's career."
Wow...I know TT had his problems and issues as a GM, but to reach all the way to Boston? Man, that's BAD!!! ;)
Finwiz
April 06, 2018 at 12:43 pm
It makes for interesting discussion, and you make some good points.
I've always been a skeptic about Brady actually taking less than market value. I think they do that to pump him up in the eyes of the team, and portray him as the ultimate team player.
He doesn't seem like the type of guy that would want to be underpaid with his level of performance, and all the "hypester" rookies with their massive contracts that have proven nothing.
Here's a guy with the supermodel wife, the biggest house in NE, and he's going to take less money because he's the ultimate team player? I'd say his ego is too big to take an average QB salary.
Minniman
April 06, 2018 at 01:58 pm
Finwiz, some good points. I too have wondered about Brady's motives and the actual reality of his deals (rather than the hype) - as well as considering third party endorsement deals into the equation for players like he and Rodgers.
Especially considering Jimmy G acquitted himself so well in the 49ers late run last year, wondering why NE didn't start to transition him in. On face value it seemed easy, transition Jimmy in and Tom out.
Bill Belichick (and to that end Robert Kraft) aren't that cavalier that they'd risk the franchise's stability like that without an ulterior motive - this possibly being Brady in the poster boy role to keep everyone else in line.
The Pats have put a lot of stock in their next QB prospect - unless the plan had always been for Jimmy G to go back.......
flackcatcher
April 06, 2018 at 11:28 am
ALP I have been asking myself the same question. I realize that this may sound stupid, but can the Packers even trade Rodgers if they wanted to. I don't even know if the Packers could get near value for him giving what he's become. In today's NFL the current currency is draft choices. How many high draft choices would a team give up to get him. I mean, What is Rodgers value. I don't know, is there a measuring stick that we fans can use.
Lare
April 06, 2018 at 11:40 am
I would trade him to Cleveland for the #1 pick this year plus their 2nd round pick, along with their 1st & 2nd round picks next year. That way they would still have their #4 pick and the Packers would still have their #14 pick.
That would give the Packers 4 picks in the top two rounds this year and next plus it would free up a ton of salary cap space to sign additional free agents.
Plus, I would make them keep Randall.
EdsLaces
April 06, 2018 at 07:16 am
Unless Goff is "The Man" it really wont matter...
TKWorldWide
April 06, 2018 at 07:58 am
Vic would be proud.
EdsLaces
April 06, 2018 at 08:09 am
;)
dobber
April 06, 2018 at 09:38 am
I think he's too busy cutting his lawn to pay attention...
croatpackfan
April 06, 2018 at 02:20 pm
Oh, no, no. He has his blog "Ask Vic" running regulary... Google it...
Razer
April 06, 2018 at 07:19 am
That defense will be scary next year. Sean McVay has Goff playing well and in a system that he can handle. They are the team to beat - at least for next year. But having that many wing nuts on the same team will work for around a year - two max. Ultimately, the selfish individuals will undercut the team. Leaving character off the hiring qualifications will make this a short run. Then again, maybe this is the new NFL.
TKWorldWide
April 06, 2018 at 08:00 am
Washington Redskins under Snyder.
Philly’s “Dream Team”.
Denver’s commitment to defense.
Sometimes this stuff works, sometimes it doesn’t.
That’s where the “maybe” came from.
RCPackerFan
April 06, 2018 at 08:15 am
Exactly right TK.
Teams that win the offseason don't usually win the super bowl.
Thegreatreynoldo
April 06, 2018 at 12:47 pm
Most teams don't win the super bowl whether they win the offseason or not, whether they have good drafts or not.
This is true simply because only one team wins the super bowl. With all due respect, the bromide has limited utility.
Philly brought in Foles, Alshon Jeffrey, Brandon Brooks, Rodney McCleod, Nigel Bradham, Torrey Smith as FAs over the last 2 seasons. I wonder when the last super bowl champion didn't have 2 to 4 major starters playing that were acquired through FA/trade? Baltimore in 2013?
John Ramble Kirk
April 06, 2018 at 12:26 pm
Would you rather be a team that went for it and have it not work out...or...be a team that didn't go for it and have it not work out? Mindset is paramount.
It always amazes me to read all these cautions about going for it. "Don't go for it...may not work and wreck your cap."... Does the idea of not going for it and it's ramifications ever get the same consideration? Why is going for it a big bad Boogeyman and not going for it justified ad nauseum?
Since'61
April 06, 2018 at 09:13 am
Suh, Peters and Talib = 3 head cases for me. Cooks is good but he has his drops and Shields???
I hope it doesn't happen but this could turn out sad/ugly for Shields. As for Suh, Peters and Talib that is like recruiting rocket scientists from Bellevue. Cooks will have his moments and his drops.
Plenty of money and draft capital spent on 5 big question marks??? Anyone of the three can blow up the locker room at any time or take a stupid penalty at a key point in a game. I know I sound like a homer but I prefer the way the Packers have gone with Graham, Wilkerson and TW. Plus we still have our 12 draft picks and some remaining cap space, not to mention plenty of cap space coming next season. Thanks, Since '61
Minniman
April 06, 2018 at 02:15 pm
On the bright side for LAR, at least it's a situation that can be unwound by without long term cap consequences.
Don't underestimate something else here too. With 2 new teams in LA, the first to be successful will attract most of the support of those as-yet undecided fans and sponsors.
I think it's a highly calculated, but smart gamble by the Rams aimed at winning that battle
Since'61
April 06, 2018 at 03:48 pm
Minniman - there is no doubt that the Rams are trying to win the city of LA at least. They need to fill the $2bn spaceship stadium that their owner is building. However, LA could not keep the Rams or the Raiders back in the day so I wonder if they can do it this time. It's tough to keep people inside for 4 hours plus the cost of tickets and parking when you can enjoy the beach or the pool for $0 and watch the game on your tablet or listen on the radio, or play tennis or golf etc..., all year round.
Plus LA has always been a Dodgers/Lakers town rather than a Rams/NFL town. We'll see but I don't think that both teams can survive there long term. I can see a future which includes the St. Louis Chargers and maybe the San Diego Rams.
Thanks, Since '61
Minniman
April 06, 2018 at 04:17 pm
Ha ha, great points, and I totally agree that it's an uphill battle to win over the LA fans that have seen NFL come and go before; but consider that the the thing that distinguishes the Lakers and Dodgers (both import franchises to LA too) is that success attracts support.
Colin_C
April 06, 2018 at 09:44 am
Yes, the Rams are making some serious moves. And yes, they could be the most talented team in the NFC. But the important thing everyone forgets this time of year is that football games aren't played on paper. Last year, our TE spot looked great on paper. We were going to dominate with our 2 TE sets. Or not. On the flip side, we lost our two starting RB's to injury, meaning a 5th round rookie had to come in as the starter. Not very good on paper, but it worked out fine. All I'm saying is that I'm not crowning anyone king of the hill until the actual games are played.
Andrew Lloyd Peth
April 06, 2018 at 10:35 am
I think the Rams could well win it all, but not just because they're loading up this year. I really liked their young talent base to begin with.
The key is they're not just trying to buy a Lombardi Trophy like the Redskins used to do. They built a good foundation first, and now they're just finishing it.
Heck yeah they could win it all.
tm_inter
April 06, 2018 at 11:31 am
I don't see the fuss unless the Rams have traded away their future draft picks. Money-wise the Rams have to operate under the salary cap rules - meaning they don't outspend other teams in the NFL.
Ndamukong Suh is overrated. He never made the Lions and the Dolphins contenders. On the contrary, his insubordination cost Joe Philbin his head coaching job at Miami.
RCPackerFan
April 06, 2018 at 12:56 pm
off the subject, but just saw this video and thought it was interesting.
https://www.nfl.com/videos/analysis
dobber
April 06, 2018 at 01:45 pm
I haven't looked at any of the other related content, but I wonder what the relative track records of other teams during that span would be?
croatpackfan
April 06, 2018 at 02:25 pm
You can go to the link and see others as well
Since'61
April 06, 2018 at 04:02 pm
RC, thanks for the link. They graded Perry as a hit when he has been a meh at best and more like a miss for a first rounder. Dix also earned a hit but after his 2017 season he is a meh for now. That would give TT 4 hits in 10 years on his #1s instead
of 6.
Given that TT usually had the 24th pick or higher this doesn't sound so bad until you remember that 2 of his hits (Raji and Mathews) came after the 6-10 2008 season, when he had the 9th pick and also traded up for CM3. If we don't count Perry and Dix as hits, TT had 2 #1 pick hits in 9 drafts. So here we are in 2018 facing limited cap space and needing better players for just about every position group including backup QB. Thanks, Since '61
Bert
April 06, 2018 at 08:16 pm
I don't blame or question the Rams strategy at all. In hindsight I wish Ted would have been more willing to go for broke instead of constantly looking to the future by counting on the draft so much. Just my opinion. Sure, things can go wrong, but you gotta make hay while the sun shines.