[Elvis]

Latest from Albert Breer:

https://www.si.com/nfl/takeaways-rams-e ... w-stafford

Takeaways: Rams Entering Critical Window With Matthew Stafford

Los Angeles and Stafford could be heading for a break-up unless the two sides can find a middle ground on giving the 37-year-old quarterback a hefty raise.

Albert Breer | 5 Hours Ago

Could you envision a world where Rams move on from Stafford? 'GMFB'

I’ll be on a plane to Indianapolis later today for the NFL scouting combine. And so the 2025 offseason begins …

Matthew Stafford
I’m not sure how the Los Angeles Rams and Matthew Stafford put this whole thing back together, but it’s going to take some work this week. And that, as I see it, is because Los Angeles, at this point, is working with a quarterback who knows what his value is to the other teams.

During the week leading up to Super Bowl LIX, Stafford’s camp got permission from the Rams to talk to other teams—so his reps have already had two weeks to test the market and see who’d be willing to give up trade compensation and a big, new contract to land the 37-year-old star. It’s only steeled belief that, given the changing conditions of quarterback cost, he should be among the nine signal-callers now on deals averaging over $50 million per year.

The teams you’d suspect would have their hat in the ring have, indeed, thrown their hats in the ring. The New York Giants, Cleveland Browns, Pittsburgh Steelers, Las Vegas Raiders and others have shown interest.

What’s hard to know now, though, is what the Rams would be willing to take to part with Stafford. If it’s a first-round pick, would the aforementioned teams still be willing to do a deal at more than $50 million per year? And if that first-round pick is in the top 10, as is the case with three of the aforementioned four teams, would the Rams be willing to take a 2026 pick instead of one this year? And if not, how in the world do the Rams fix this with Stafford?

Here’s the reality—last year’s Stafford-Rams compromise was a result of months of failed negotiations on a market correction to his existing contract. So the $5 million “raise” the Los Angeles brass gave him to get him to show for camp was really more of an adjustment. The sides agreed to borrow $4 million from 2025 and another $1 million from ’26 to fund it.

Just about any time you see a team do that, it’s basically an acknowledgment from both sides of the table that the agreement is a Band-Aid, and it’s awfully unlikely that the player will agree to play on the lowered number in the future year.

Why do it this way? Teams do it like this to avoid the precedent of adding new money to a deal without adding new years. The trouble in this case is the Rams did that already for Aaron Donald in 2022. And while anyone could easily argue that a once-in-a-generation talent deserves that sort of exception (and Donald did), it’s just as easy to see why the quarterback that won a Super Bowl with that generational talent would ask for the same treatment.

So here we are now, with Stafford having knowledge on what other teams are willing to pay him, and the Rams sitting there with a strong, young roster, and a timeline that doesn’t quite match up with Stafford’s, and a lot of water under the bridge.

Can the toothpaste go back in the tube after letting a guy look around? Will the Rams be willing to go to a financial level they didn’t before? Or would Aaron Rodgers coming on a cheaper deal (and he may be willing to take one to play in L.A.) or Sean McVay’s ability to maximize, say, Jimmy Garoppolo or Kirk Cousins at a cut rate, appeal to the team when combined with the picks coming back and extra money to spend on the rest of the roster?

It’s a fascinating situation, to say the least.

Still, Stafford really likes Southern California. McVay likes having Stafford. And over the next week or so, we’ll probably get a better idea on whether that’ll be enough to push a marriage that’s worked out really well for four years into a fifth season.

[actionjack]

True but i think you can also flip it around and ask why do the Rams care so much about maybe $10/20 mil over 2 years? It's not a lot of money and it's not a long term commitment, doesn't really affect future plans.

Are the Rams really saying we'll pay him 47 but not 52 or something like that? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me either.

Now if we find out Stafford wants a 4 year $200 mil deal and other teams are willing to give it to him, then i get it. Otherwise, not so much...

I mean I think that is negotiating 101, if Stafford wants every last penny and the Rams have a number they arent comfortable going beyond?!? I think it works out like you say, get a 3 year deal where the 3rd year can be voided and get around 50 ish mil/yr most of the 2 year portion is guaranteed.

[Elvis]

Jourdan:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/615705 ... n-combine/

INDIANAPOLIS — Like they do every offseason, a small team of Los Angeles Rams executives will meet the agents of their players under contract this week during the NFL Scouting Combine.

The stakes are much larger than usual, though, in light of an ongoing contract dispute between quarterback Matthew Stafford and the team. Stafford’s agent, Jimmy Sexton, is among those the team expects to meet with, league sources said, as the NFL ecosystem descends upon Indianapolis’ hotel lobbies and convention center ballrooms. The Rams can get little else done in free agency until the ongoing matter with their quarterback is resolved, so they should have more clarity after this week. ...

[ramsman34]

I wonder if Tony Pastoors is in Indy??

Action, Elvis, and I are all on the same page on this one. Is he worth $50 mil a year for 2 years with a garbage 3rd year not guaranteed? He is. If, IF the Rams think they can make the moves to be in serious SB contention in 2025 and ‘26. I believe they do. However, the fallout after that cap wise - especially with guys coming eligible for extensions - could be very detrimental.

Also, LT is the elephant in the room. That position has to be addressed and my guess is they turn to their first pick in this draft to do it as they can’t pay Staff and A Jax big $$.

There is also the WR room that needs quality players 2-5. J Whit is one of those guys. But that leaves 3-4 holes at WR. Can the team get by with the TEs they have? Sure. But an upgrade there is a fairly high priority. Lastly, they have work to do at corner as well as ILB.

There are a lot of dominoes that will be falling starting with the QB position - and very soon.

Buckle up. It’s getting turbulent.

[Elvis]

I wonder if Tony Pastoors is in Indy??

Either him or someone who reports to him, you gotta assume.

I believe they do. However, the fallout after that cap wise - especially with guys coming eligible for extensions - could be very detrimental.

I'm not sure i buy this line of thinking. As Stafford's contract is right now, he counts almost $50 mil against the 2025 cap. A new/restructured contract would only reduce that. Maybe they add one year to lessen the hit in 2025 and 2026 and take a dead cap hit in 2027 but that's status quo for cap management. Plus the cap always goes up. I really don't think that's a big deal.

Now if Stafford wants $200 mil for 4 years, well that would be different. But $100 mil for 2 years, don't see how that hurts the Rams.

Even if Stafford shits the bed or gets hurt, they can still draft a rookie next year and have him for cheap. It wouldn't be that big of a hit.

The things that gets you in trouble is when you extend Goff, Gurley and Cooks, and then bail on all of them eating a shit ton of dead cap with nothing to show for it. And even then Rams won the SB in '21.

Maybe the Rams see options they like better, or similar, to keeping Stafford but i don't think the finances of 2 years at $50 mil are much of a problem, now or going forward...

[Elvis]

[Zen_Ronin]

Oh cool, he's already trying to make roster decisions for us.

I'll sit out any season he's the Rams QB, and the Rams better think long and hard about how much ground they'd lose as LA's football team by bringing him in. The Chargers are going to be good for a long time now, do the Rams really want to be LA's second fiddle, because this is how that starts.

[Elvis]

[Elvis]

[actionjack]

Oh cool, he's already trying to make roster decisions for us.

I'll sit out any season he's the Rams QB, and the Rams better think long and hard about how much ground they'd lose as LA's football team by bringing him in. The Chargers are going to be good for a long time now, do the Rams really want to be LA's second fiddle, because this is how that starts.

completely agree, I am out on anything with Rodgers. Darnold I could maybe get behind, but you are going pay him 40+ so not sure why you wouldnt just sign Stafford.