Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Rams tried to trade for Aaron Rodgers first


Ja  Rhule
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, MilkyCastles said:

Your point was that La couldn’t replicate TB’s result with Rodgers because there’s only ONE Brady. But in reality LA has a great roster, and in reality Rodgers is a better QB than Brady, by what margin is irrelevant to the conversation. So are you saying that teams that make a move like that are ultimately unsuccessful and it’s detrimental to them long term? Because if so you’re initial comment did not indicate that whatsoever, seemed like you were directly comparing two teams and two QB’s ala your NBA analogy- which isn’t really an analogy because it’s the exact same thing as the original scenario just nba instead of nfl, so doesn’t really help illuminate any greater point. 
 

MY point is that LA with Rodgers would be insane, and would be so much fun to watch, and undoubtedly would be Super Bowl favorites going into next year. 

Could LA get to the Super Bowl with Rogers at the helm, particularly in year one?  Sure, but TB actually did it and LA is just trying to copy it.  Imitation is the best form of flattery.  However, when you are using THE standard as your reference point, be mindful that your expectations might not be met.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • lol, that second part is quite literally one of the dumbest things ever. Having or not having guaranteed contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how much these billionaires have to pay.  Because there is a hard cap and a minimum cap spend requirement, and teams either use their cap or roll it over to use it all the next year, so the owners have to pay the same amount of money in the end no matter what. Having fully guaranteed contracts in the NFL would only hurt salary cap management, and thus would end up screwing over the team and its fan base when teams kiss on signings as they take up cap room that is needed to improve the roster. Look at the Browns with Watson, they gave him the fully guaranteed deal and all it’s doing is sucking up massive cap space now.  If they hadn’t done that, the owner would still be paying the same amount of money each year as that cap space would still be used elsewhere. If you want to argue for fully guaranteed contracts because the players deserve it, that’s an entirely different argument and a fair one to discuss.  But anyone against fully guaranteed deals isn’t doing it to argue for the billionaire owners.
    • Start posting in threads in the other forums instead of just creating threads. No one comes over here so you aren't starting conversations.  Get your ass up to 100 posts. It's not that hard. Don't create 100 posts. Contribute to conversations. 
    • Ryabkin could be the steal of the draft, he was a Top 10 pick heading into last season and had a rough year.  Lots of GMs passed on him because of that and his workouts. Pick has really high upside and Svech should be able to translate Rod tearing his arse a new one for making dumb plays since Svech has had several years of it.  🤣😂
×
×
  • Create New...