Tag: rams trade

ESPN gives Rams a fairly favorable grade for Cam Akers trade

ESPN graded the Cam Akers trade for both the Rams and Vikings, and both teams received favorable marks

On paper, the Los Angeles Rams’ decision to trade Cam Akers to the Minnesota Vikings for a late-round pick swap seems like a bad move. They didn’t gain any draft capital, and all they did was move up one round in the 2026 NFL draft, from the seventh to the sixth.

However, the real reason Los Angeles made this trade was to part with a player who seemingly didn’t fit with the culture Sean McVay has built in the Rams’ building. Not to mention, the Rams also saved $1.29 million in cap space by dumping Akers, the same amount they would’ve recouped if they had just cut him.

ESPN’s Seth Walder graded the trade for both teams and he was fairly favorable to each. He gave the Vikings a B+, while the Rams got a respectable B-.

With Akers gone, Kyren Williams solidifies his role as the Rams’ starting back, which seemed to be the case, anyway. Williams has put up strong fantasy numbers with four touchdowns in two games, but his efficiency has been lacking. He is averaging just 3.6 yards per carry and has minus-14 RYOE.

Maybe the Rams could have gotten slightly more for Akers a week ago, before he was a healthy scratch. Then again, other teams can see his rushing inefficiency, too.

The Rams barely got anything in return for Akers but they obviously didn’t see him as an important player after making him a healthy scratch in Week 2. And now with him gone, they no longer have to answer questions about what his role will be, what’s going on behind closed doors or whether he’ll remain with the team.

This was essentially a case of addition by subtraction, and the Rams were lucky to even get anything back for the fourth-year running back.

[lawrence-auto-related count=3]

Jared Goff could get traded by the Rams, so does Washington make sense?

New reports are showing that the Rams are open to trading QB Jared Goff, so where does Washington fit in that mix, and would they even want him?

A lot of our time over the past few weeks has been focused on which quarterback the Washington Football Team is likely to end up with at the start of the 2021 season.

Many have their eyes set on guys like Deshaun Watson, or Matthew Stafford, or Dak Prescott, or Matt Ryan; all guys who could be picked up in free agency or via trade for some high-prices. However, a new name has entered the chat: Los Angeles Rams QB Jared Goff.

A report from The Athletic shows that the Rams are starting to engage in some “exploratory trade talks,” according to Jourdan Rodrigue, with the ultimate goal to bring Stafford back to LA to run Sean McVay’s offense. With a high cap number after signing a new contract within the last couple of years and an apparent regression, it seems that the Goff experience in LA might be coming to an end.

That means if the Rams deem a quarterback worth trading for and are able to execute such a transaction, they would be willing to eat $22.2 million in dead-cap money, plus the new quarterback’s salary. They also could trade Goff after June 1 (an extremely rare scenario, though there is league precedent) for a relatively small total of $6.8 million in dead money in 2021 (plus $15.4 million in 2022).

So, like we said up top, Jared Goff’s name has now entered the chat of quarterbacks who are likely to be on the move this offseason. However, does that mean that Washington should be interested? It’s clear that they need a new guy under center going forward, but is Goff the guy?

Ask that question two years ago, and the answer is definitely yes. Ask that question now, and you’ll likely get a response that ranges from slightly-timid to aggressively against. What happened?

Well, a young player with a high ceiling was seemingly exposed by the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl a couple of years back, where he was held to 229 yards and 1 INT, being held out of the endzone in a 13-3 snoozer. Since then, things have fallen off a bit for Goff, and we can’t really figure out why. Check out these stats from Goff in both 2017 and 2018, compared to what he’s done in 2019 and 2020:

2017-2018: 24-7 record, 8492 yards, 60 TD, 65.3% completion, 19 INT

2019-2020: 18-13 record, 8590 yards, 42 TD, 64.95% completion, 29 INT

With a high-flying offense like the Rams have, Goff is apparently not the guy that McVay envisions running it going forward, but that doesn’t mean he can’t still have a solid career in the NFL. If Washington were to be interested, it would cost them significantly less to acquire Goff than someone like Stafford or Watson, simply because they’d more being doing LA a favor by getting him off their books. However, a Goff acquisition would likely not sit over very well with the fanbase in D.C., as he lacks a star factor that is so desired to head up this offense.

Goff feels more like a last-resort acquisition, mainly because of his regression, and that frighteningly big contract that he brings with him. At this point, though, it feels that his name has to at least be mentioned.

[listicle id=46477]

Report: Rams have begun talking to teams about trading Jared Goff

The Rams appear poised to move on from Jared Goff this offseason and have begun exploring trades.

It sure seems like someone other than Jared Goff will be playing quarterback for the Los Angeles Rams next season. Both Sean McVay and Les Snead made it clear after the season ended that the team will explore other options at quarterback, choosing not to endorse Goff as the starter in 2021 or beyond.

Cutting him isn’t an option, but a trade is certainly possible. According to The Athletic, the Rams have talked to multiple teams about trading Goff and acquiring a quarterback. It’s still early in the offseason and trades can’t officially be made until the new league year begins on March 17, but discussions can take place ahead of time.

If the Rams do trade Goff, they’ll take on a $22.2 million dead cap hit in 2021, saving $12.4 million in cap space. Goff has a $34.625 million cap hit if he’s on the roster next season, the highest of any player on the team.

The Rams appear interested in Matthew Stafford, according to ESPN, and he considers them a contender in the trade sweepstakes. The Lions have agreed to part ways with Stafford this offseason, and the team’s new general manager is Brad Holmes, former college scouting director of the Rams.

Goff has four years left on his contract after signing a $134 million deal with the Rams in 2019.

[vertical-gallery id=644624]

Rams stand pat at trade deadline for first time in three years

For the first time since 2017, the Rams didn’t make so much as a peep at the trade deadline.

The 2020 NFL trade deadline came and went on Tuesday without so much as a single notable trade. Deals were made earlier involving Kwon Alexander and Desmond King, and the Dolphins traded Isaiah Ford before 4 p.m. ET on Tuesday, but there were no blockbusters like in recent years.

And for the first time since 2017, the Rams stood pat without making a trade. Last year, they acquired Jalen Ramsey, Austin Corbett and Kenny Young, while also trading away Aqib Talib and Marcus Peters. The year prior, Dante Fowler Jr. was brought in to provide some pass-rush help.

But this time around, the Rams felt confident in their current group of players, even despite the weaknesses seen at linebacker and kicker. It’s hard to blame them for not making a move, too.

With the expected salary cap restraints that could come in 2021, potentially putting several teams in a bind financially, the Rams need all the carryover money they can get. By acquiring another player, they would’ve taken on additional salary cap obligations, which would hurt their situation next year.

Not to mention, COVID-19 restrictions make it difficult for a player to contribute right away after joining his new team. For instance, Kai Forbath, who the Rams signed off the Bears’ practice squad, wasn’t able to practice with L.A. until more than a week later.

The Rams are currently on a bye, so that would’ve given them an extra week to get a player up to speed, but they clearly didn’t feel confident that anyone available would’ve helped them enough to warrant a deal.

5 players Rams could potentially trade before deadline

The Rams are unlikely to trade any key players before the deadline, but here are five possibilities.

The 2020 trade deadline is on the same day as Election Day, with all deals in the NFL needing to be made by 4 p.m. ET on Nov. 3. The Rams have been aggressive in recent years at the deadline, acquiring players such as Dante Fowler Jr., Jalen Ramsey and Austin Corbett.

We’ve already laid out possible trade targets for L.A. if Les Snead is looking to add help to the roster, but let’s now look at some possible trade chips the Rams could ship out of town.

To be clear, none of these players are likely to be traded, but if the Rams are in search of draft capital or maybe a player-for-player trade, they could possibly be dealt.

10 potential trade targets for Rams before deadline

The Rams could use help at a couple of key positions, and there are trade candidates out there to be had.

The NFL trade deadline is right around the corner, with all deals needing to be made by Tuesday, Nov. 3 at 4 p.m. ET. The Rams are once again positioned to be buyers, sitting at 5-2 and tied for second in the NFC West.

Les Snead said not to expect a “big splash” from the Rams before the deadline, but he wouldn’t rule out the possibility of making a trade if the right player comes available. For a team that acquired Dante Fowler Jr. and Jalen Ramsey in the last two years, nothing is out of the question.

Here are 10 potential trade targets for Los Angeles ahead of Tuesday’s deadline.

6 trade scenarios for the Rams on Day 2 of the draft

The Rams have a lot of options when it comes to trades in the second and third rounds.

The first night of the NFL draft only featured four trades, including none in the top 10 for the first time since 2015. It was a relatively quiet first round on the trade front, but with a day to take a breather and regroup, the deals could come in bunches on Friday night.

The Rams have a general manager who’s always willing to make trades during the draft, especially when it comes to moving back and stockpiling picks. Les Snead will be active on the phone lines during the second and third rounds, owning four picks on Day 2.

Here are six potential trade scenarios for the Rams that add up on the trade value chart – three moves up and three trade-downs.

Trade up to No. 35

Rams trade: 52 + 84
Lions trade: 35

If the Rams are looking to make a splash right off the bat on Friday night, they can do so by jumping 17 spots to select a player they likely deem a first-round talent. Might that be Zack Baun? Or offensive tackle Josh Jones? Both would make sense for the Rams, but the price of trading an extra third-round pick may be too steep.

Trade up to No. 44

Rams trade: 52 + 104
Colts trade: 44

This one is a little easier to swallow. It’s only a jump of eight spots, but if a top prospect such as Curtis Weaver or Yetur Gross-Matos slips, the Rams might pounce. This trade would also cost the Rams a third-round pick, but it’d be their compensatory pick that’s 20 slots lower than the 84th selection.

Trade up to No. 68 from 84

Rams trade: 84 + 104
Jets trade: 68 + 211

The Rams traded up twice in the third round last year, so here’s a scenario for them to make a similar move. They swap their third-round compensatory pick for the Jets’ sixth-rounder, moving up 16 spots in the third round. Again, not a huge move, but one that could be the difference between getting their guy and missing out on him.

Pages: Page 1, Page 2

Would trading for Leonard Fournette make any sense for the Rams?

The Rams could use RB help, but they shouldn’t trade for Leonard Fournette.

Leonard Fournette is coming off the best season of his career, so naturally, the Jacksonville Jaguars are looking to move on from the talented running back. According to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, the Jaguars have had trade talks with teams about Fournette.

Those discussions go back more than a month, and in the last three days, the Jaguars have circled back with teams. There haven’t been any takers yet, according to Ian Rapoport, but Fournette could still be traded.

If you scour Twitter for reactions to this news, one team comes up as a logical fit for Fournette more than most: the Rams.

The connection between L.A. and Jacksonville is undeniable, considering the Rams have added three of the Jaguars’ most prominent players in the last two years. They traded for Dante Fowler Jr., signed Blake Bortles and acquired Jalen Ramsey in a blockbuster deal, so it’s easy to connect the dots there.

Ramsey and Fournette are good friends, too, recently talking on FaceTime.

After cutting Todd Gurley, the Rams have a hole at running back. While Darrell Henderson and Malcolm Brown are capable starters, Los Angeles has done homework on running back prospects in the draft and could be in the market for some help at that position.

But would Fournette actually make sense as a trade acquisition for the Rams? On paper, sure. But in reality, not exactly.

First, let’s look at the biggest hurdle standing in the way of any possible trade: the salary cap. Currently, the Rams are over the cap by about $5.3 million, according to Over the Cap. They’re the only team with no cap space, and there aren’t many easy avenues to clearing more room.

The Rams haven’t even officially signed Leonard Floyd, whose one-year, $10 million deal isn’t accounted for in that cap figure. So in order to fit him and the incoming draft class under the cap, the Rams need to clear more than $10 million.

That can be done by restructuring Jared Goff’s and Aaron Donald’s contracts, but the team seems reluctant to do that because of the ramifications that come with pushing money into future years. So right off the bat, the Rams will find it difficult to make room for Fournette’s $4.16 million salary in 2020.

Secondly, draft capital isn’t something Los Angeles can necessarily afford to give away. The Rams have two picks each in the second and third rounds, but they don’t have any selections in the first or fifth rounds. The Jaguars probably wouldn’t take less than a third for Fournette, and trading a top-100 pick for a running back after just cutting one last month makes little sense.

Then there’s the scheme fit, which isn’t great with Fournette and the Rams. While he’s plenty fast enough to break off big runs, and powerful enough to gain yards after contact, Fournette lacks the agility and later quickness to thrive in a zone blocking scheme that heavily features outside runs.

Although he improved as a receiver last season with 76 catches for 522 yards, Fournette isn’t viewed as a dynamic playmaker in the passing game – something the Rams like for their running backs to be. And when it comes to creating yards by himself, he struggles in that area.

Fournette broke 16 tackles last season, but he only averaged one broken tackle per 16 attempts, which ranked 32nd in the NFL. In 2018, he was third-to-last at 44.3 attempts per broken tackle.

There are many hurdles preventing the Rams from acquiring Fournette, as well as several factors that make him a poor fit in Los Angeles. But there are two things that do make sense in this hypothetical scenario.

The first is the fact that Les Snead and Sean McVay want the Rams to get back to their roots of running the ball and establishing the ground game the way they did with Gurley in 2017 and 2018 – more specifically with Gurley and C.J. Anderson at the end of the 2018 season.

Fournette is a true workhorse who can play all three downs, similar to the way Gurley could. He can run between the tackles and pick up tough yards, which Henderson and Brown may struggle to do.

Additionally, Fournette hasn’t been afforded the chance to run in an offense that features a capable passing game. When Bortles was there, teams would load the box against Fournette because the pass wasn’t a real threat. In 2018, Fournette faced boxes of eight-plus defenders 35.34% of the time – third-most in the NFL. Gurley’s rate that year, for comparison, was only 7.81% (third-lowest).

In 2017, that number was 48.51% for Fournette (fifth-highest) and 16.85% for Gurley (third-lowest). It’s part of the reason Fournette only gained 1.6 yards before contact (45th) in 2018 and 1.4 (43rd) last season. His offensive line and supporting cast were terrible, forcing him to run into stacked boxes.

All this is to say the Rams most likely aren’t going to trade for Fournette. They don’t have the cap space or the wealth of draft capital to strike a deal that works in their favor, nor would trading for an oft-injured running back after cutting Gurley make much sense.

But as always, never rule anything out with the Rams.

Sean McVay debunks ‘unfair narrative’ about Brandin Cooks

Sean McVay and Les Snead explain why the Rams traded Brandin Cooks.

Brandin Cooks is one of just nine players in the NFL with four seasons of at least 1,000 yards receiving since 2015. Yet, he’s been traded three times in that span and will play for his fourth team next season. For comparison, no other player with at least one 1,000-yard season since 2015 has played for more than two teams.

So what gives?

That’s the question many fans are asking about Cooks, with some wondering if there’s a lesser-known reason for Cooks being traded so frequently. Is he a bad teammate? Does he not work hard enough? Was there a rift with his coaches?

Sean McVay put those false narratives to rest Wednesday, saying Cooks is one of the best players he’s ever worked with.

“He’s a great player. I think the one thing I want to address immediately is I think there’s been an unfair narrative of, ‘all right, he’s been traded now for the third time, maybe this guy isn’t a great teammate’ and that really couldn’t be further from the truth. This is one of my all-time favorite players I’ve ever worked with,” he said.

McVay talked highly of Cooks, and has ever since he arrived in Los Angeles two years ago. He confirmed recently that teams were calling about him as a possible trade chip, but said the Rams valued him just like other teams do.

It begs the question of why the Rams traded Cooks, especially considering they stood to lose $5 million in cap space compared to how much he would’ve cost to keep on the roster.

“It’s the result of a lot of tough decisions that we really had to make organizationally as a whole this offseason, losing a lot of great players that have been instrumental in our success, and Brandin is one of those guys as well,” McVay said. “But it’s also a reflection of the confidence that we do have in some other players on our roster.”

General manager Les Snead was also on NFL Network, and while he didn’t comment on Cooks as a person, he did shed some light on what led to the trade. He said teams believed at the start of the offseason that the Rams might cut Cooks due to his inflated salary.

The front office never planned to do that, and when other teams realized that, they began to make trade offers. A second-round pick was too good for the Rams to pass up, given the depth they have at wide receiver.

“First and foremost, I think teams came into this offseason thinking we might cut Brandin Cooks based on salary. When that timeline passed and teams realized we weren’t going to cut him and that we actually liked Brandin, some teams that were needy started knocking on our door a little bit more,” Snead said. “We’re just fortunate we have depth there and when we were offered the second-round pick, we felt like maybe that second-round pick would help us establish depth or even starters at other positions than just having a very powerful four-man wide receiver rotation.”

The Rams don’t necessarily need to draft a receiver at No. 57 overall, which is the pick they got in return for Cooks. They already have Josh Reynolds on the roster and feel confident in him being able to step up as a starter, just as he did in 2018 when Cooper Kupp missed half the season.

Trading Cooks was a difficult decision to make, but ultimately one the team felt comfortable with because of the value of a second-round pick and their depth at wide receiver.

[vertical-gallery id=630942]

Rams have draft capital to trade into 1st round – but should they?

The Rams could package their 2nd-round picks to move up to No. 27 overall, but that’d be a bad decision.

It’s been four years since the Los Angeles Rams last made a first-round pick, and as things currently stand, it’ll be another two years until they make their next selection in the top 32. To put that into perspective, Sean McVay was 30 years old when he was hired by the Rams and he won’t make a first-round pick until he’s 36.

Few teams, if any, have been as aggressive as the Rams in the last three years. They’ve traded draft picks like candy, acquiring the likes of Sammy Watkins, Brandin Cooks, Marcus Peters, Aqib Talib and Jalen Ramsey.

The Rams don’t have a first-round pick this year (or next), but is it possible they could make a selection in the top 32 during next week’s draft? After trading away Cooks for a second-round pick, it’s certainly possible – albeit, unlikely.

The Rams have the 52nd and 57th overall picks in the draft and could conceivably package those picks to make a big move up, all the way into the first round. Let’s take a look at the trade value chart using figures from Drafttek to see just how far the Rams could trade up.

With a total value of 710 points, the Rams could move all the way to No. 26, where the Dolphins are selecting. That’s an unlikely trade to happen, though, because Miami already has more picks than it knows what to do with. A more realistic move would be a trade with the Seahawks or Ravens at No. 27 and 28, specifically Seattle.

Pete Carroll and John Schneider love to trade down and stockpile picks, and trading with the Rams would net them two second-round picks, giving them four selections in the first two rounds: Nos. 52, 57, 59 and 64.

If the Ravens were to make that deal with the Rams, they’d have picks 52, 55, 57 and 60. Whether that’s more valuable than the 28th pick is up for debate, but it’s a scenario that checks out on the trade value chart.

As for the Rams, moving back into the first round is fun to think about. It’d give them a fifth-year option and excite fans on the first night of the draft for the first time since 2016, but it’d be the wrong move.

For what the Rams need in this draft, they’d be far better off staying where they are and using those two second-round picks to bolster the roster. Although the depth chart looks decent right now, it’s hard to make the case that the Rams are one player away from being back in the Super Bowl. And by trading up to the first round, they’d be saying they’re that close to being the team they were in 2018.

The Rams could help at guard, center, inside linebacker, edge rusher, wide receiver, running back and safety. That doesn’t mean they need Day 1 starters at those spots, but all of them could use reinforcements for the 2020 season and beyond.

If the Rams were to trade up to No. 27 or 28, it would have to be for a surefire starter – which can’t always be found at the end of the first round. Here are some possible targets for the Rams if they were to trade into the final few picks of the first.

  • Michigan C Cesar Ruiz
  • Baylor WR Denzel Mims
  • TCU WR Jalen Reagor
  • LSU LB Patrick Queen
  • Oklahoma LB Kenneth Murray

Notice how there isn’t a guard or edge rusher on that list. It’s not because all of the good ones will be gone by the end of the first round, but because the real value at those positions is in the second and third rounds.

Even at wide receiver, center and linebacker, there’s excellent value in the second round – more so than in the final 10 picks of the first round.

If the Rams stand pat at No. 52 and 57, they could come away with a combination such as OLB Julian Okwara and WR Brandon Aiyuk, or OLB Terrell Lewis and C Lloyd Cushenberry, or OLB Josh Uche and WR Michael Pittman Jr.

All of those players would most likely be impactful from Day 1 for the Rams, which would be far more beneficial than finding one potential starter in the first round. Los Angeles simply isn’t one player away from returning to its 2018 form.

And that’s the primary reason the Rams should either stay put at No. 52 and 57, make a small trade up that doesn’t include packaging both picks together, or even moving down to stockpile more selections in Rounds 3 and 4.

This draft class is simply too deep at the Rams’ positions of need and L.A. doesn’t have the slightest chance to trade up far enough to land a blue-chip prospect in the top 10.

[vertical-gallery id=630962]