I’d agree that’s the easiest way to explain it to someone who isn’t interested in the details, which do get to be mind-bggling. It sort of works because we traded up for Jamo and down for Gibbs. Is it 100% accurate? No. Is it approximately right? Yes.
I get your thinking and it makes sense.
But I think we still need to reckon getting the 34 and 168 from Arizona, and losing the 81st pick.
It doesn’t equate to getting Laporta straight up, but nets 399 points according to the JJ chart. The 34 is worth 560.
399/560= 71%.
So you can add 71% of whatever Sam Laporta turns out to be. 
We lost 400 points by dropping from #6 to #12
#6 - 1600
#81 - 185
Total - 1785
#12 - 1200
#34 - 560
#68 - 22.6
Total - 1782.6
There isn’t anything extra in that trade.
2 Likes
Okay, well I’m glad I finally got you to admit where you’re right.
1 Like
Everyone gets there eventually 
But it’s still not wrong to say Holmes parlayed the Stafford trade into Goff, Jamo, Gibbs and 71% or whatever of Laporta. He may have missed out on Jalen Carter or whoever, but we’re talking here about what he actually did with the draft capital. We can compare all of the players picked between 6 and 12 later, but in terms of who the Lions actually landed Laporta has to be included. Fingers in ears! Laporta did not appear out of thin air, he came as a result of the trades. /runs
Well, yea . . . I get it, I mean I’m always accused of looking at things through my Honolulu Blue sunglasses too.
1 Like
Ha, well you’re looking at it like an accountant and me as a lawyer (I’m not). But it’s like there are numbers (math) and words (logic) and both can be correct at the same time.
1 Like
QB swap aside, if Jamo, Gibbs and Laporta* reach their respective ceilings, look out. Then I think we are talking about a perennial contender. I mean, yeah a lot of things have to go right. But that’s a heckuva lot of added firepower, on paper.
1 Like
I tried to follow this thread but who are you calling a Yeti?
Yes it is.
Why only pick out LaPorta? Martin and Pascal came as the result of the trades too.
If you go by @DeadStroke’s approximate accounting, it works because the first rounder in 22 we traded up for (1200-590 = 610), and the first rounder in 23 we traded down for (1200 - 1600 = -400) nearly cancel each other. So @Deadstrokes accounting is only off by about 200 points (which is a middle third rounder). What you’re saying is you should care about that 200…which starts creeping back to the accurate accounting that @DBend144 made. LaPorta was pick 34 worth 560. The 200 shortfall is only 36% of LaPorta, or about 45% of Pascal (pick 46), or 172% of Broderick Martin. Either way, its not clean. At least @DeadStroke’s accounting is relatively clean, you just have to overlook a mid-third round surplus.
Trade definitely isn’t done yet. The Rams will trade Stafford for picks or a player in the next year or two. Tried to this year but contract was terrible. Gotta add that into the equation.
1 Like
Rams paid a huge signing bonus. His contract was actually lower this year than it is in future years. Stafford is/was due:
2023 - $27.5M
2024 - $31M
2025 - $32M
2026 - $31M
There are currently 13QB’s making more than Stafford’s current average of $30M per year. I don’t think it was Stafford’s contract, as it is quite reasonable (unless you are worried about injuries). I think it’s the compensation that the Rams wanted, they gave up 2 1sts and Goff, I’d think they’d want at least 2 1sts for him.
Agreed. This aint over until the Hooker sings!
We also got Brodric Martin in the Stafford trade. And we got Martin in the Trinity Benson trade. And we got Martin in the TJ Hockenson trade.
I read that on the internet.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.