One of the most surprising moves of the NFL offseason thus far was the Rams’ decision to cut Todd Gurley. It cost them $20.15 million in dead money, second-most in league history. It left him off the roster less than two years after signing a four-year extension, which was set to begin in 2020.
For the first time since making the move, the Rams shed some light on that decision and what went into it on Monday. General manager Les Snead said it was in the best interest of the Rams – both in the immediate and distant future – to move on from Gurley.
“Our vision is to keep us as the Rams contending, not only in the short term but the long term. Without getting into all the intimate details, releasing Todd we felt was the best thing for the Rams not only in the short term but also long term,” he said on a conference call.
By releasing Gurley, the Rams will save $5.5 million in 2020, which will be reflected on June 2 since he was a post-June 1 cut. That allows the team to spread his dead money over two seasons, easing the burden on the current year.
But in Snead’s mind, this wasn’t strictly a financial decision.
“In this case, I don’t think it’s a salary cap issue,” Snead said. “But in the puzzle, like I said in putting together your short-term and long-term vision of trying to consistently contend, what you pay players comes into play, obviously how players are producing comes into play.”
The Rams rewarded Gurley in 2018 with a $60 million extension after he had played just three seasons in the NFL. He had two years left on his rookie deal, but the Rams surprisingly tacked four more years onto the end of it to sign him through 2023.
It cost them a big chunk of money compared to what they could’ve paid him had he played out his rookie contract, but Snead has no regrets about that decision.
“From a regret standpoint, there’s no way you can ever regret the yards he gained, the touchdowns he scored for us, the championships – whether it’s two division titles, a conference championship, Super Bowl appearance – that would be tough to regret,” he said. “What I will say is obviously you wish the partnership could’ve lasted longer. But from the standpoint of Todd earning that contract, he did earn that. That showed up in the production and how he helped us win.”
Sean McVay coached Gurley for three years and helped turn him into a two-time All-Pro after a disastrous 2016 season under Jeff Fisher. He likely had a hand in the Rams paying Gurley as much as they did, but he wouldn’t say it was solely a salary cap move, either.
Like Snead, he likened it to a puzzle and trying to fit every piece into the equation.
“There’s so many different dynamics and things, and what you guys know, a lot of the decisions we make aren’t exclusively about the player, but you’re talking about how to fit a big puzzle together with your team,” McVay said. “To say that one thing goes into that wouldn’t be accurate. These are conversations that require a lot of different directions and kind of projections based on where we’re at, where we want to be, not only this year but years from now. Those are a lot of things that go on behind the scenes, but there certainly was a lot of things that went into the discussion and ultimately the decision to make that move.”
It’d be inaccurate to say McVay was shocked by the Rams cutting Gurley, but it’s also not something he expected to happen.
“To say that was something that I think you could have ever anticipated, I think the answer is no,” he said.
It’s understandable that McVay and Snead wouldn’t divulge into all the details that went into cutting one of the faces of the franchise, but the answers provided by McVay and Snead are somewhat puzzling – no pun intended. Their responses suggest they simply don’t think Gurley is the player he once was, otherwise they would’ve been comfortable paying him what they planned to when they signed him to a four-year extension.
It’d be hard to argue with that explanation, too, considering how far Gurley fell off last season with fewer than 1,000 yards rushing and only 207 yards receiving. He didn’t look like the same player, and the Rams clearly weren’t content paying that version of Gurley more than $14 million per year.