Stafford’s future … update, he signed & is staying

how about Kupp and Stafford to the Chargers for Justin Herbert and Khalil Mack?

This won’t post, so here’s the link. It’s Cowherd on the Stafford situation.

https://twitter.com/RamsTapes/status/1890104151163773357

Cowherd continues to push his theory on Rodgers to LA.

Breyer is correct, Rams are young and need Stafford for the next 2 seasons.

Rams have the window open right now, just need a little more consistency from Rozeboom and Reeder.

When healthy, the Rams are right there.

Pat Leonard@PLeonardNYDN
Just had @AdamSchefter on Talkin’ Ball with Pat Leonard. He told me “there is no way in hell that the #Giants are giving up the third overall pick for Matthew Stafford” if trade talks ever occur. But it might not even come to that.

Schefter said the #Rams’ “first priority” is to re-sign Stafford, and they believe at the moment they can work something out. Plus, Stafford “would like to be back in L.A.”

Full interview here @YouTube & @BleavNetwork: https://youtu.be/4Jbrx3BGUCE

…

that interview quoted, from https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2025/02/14/matthew-stafford-giants-trade-rumors-rams-draft-pick/?taid=67b19b0cbbd52000018d77fa&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter

more of what Schefter said about the situation.

“I think they’re committed to trying to work something out,” he said. “But it doesn’t mean that they actually will work something out, and that’s where Giants fans and people around the Tr-State New York area are getting curious and interested. Because if – if – they don’t get it worked out, then, obviously, the Giants become an option.”

…

Schefter isn’t ruling anything out right now when it comes to Stafford’s future. He says the Rams believe they can get something done with the veteran quarterback, but that doesn’t mean they’ll actually be able to – especially after last year’s negotiations dragged out for months until the start of camp.

“I think the Rams have sensed and believed that they think they can get it worked out. Doesn’t mean they will,” he said. “But if they can, then all this talk about Chad Hall and Matthew Stafford and New York doesn’t mean anything. If they don’t get it worked out, well, then we’ve got something to talk about leading into the combine and the start of the new league year and I would think we have an answer to that sooner rather than later because the Rams have to get clarity because they have to know, ‘OK, are we getting a deal done with Matthew Stafford and if not, then what are we doing about this particular situation?’ But I think their first priority, their interest is in re-signing Matthew and I think Matthew would like to be back in L.A., but the Rams have a price, Matthew has a price, and can they meet in a common ground and work it out, or not?”

Rodrigue, from Assessing Matthew Stafford’s, Cooper Kupp’s situations with the Rams: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6137806/2025/02/17/rams-matthew-stafford-cooper-kupp-future/

LOS ANGELES — Though it has been clear over the past month that the Los Angeles Rams are ready to move on from receiver Cooper Kupp, quarterback Matthew Stafford’s situation remains fluid. The sides met to talk before the Super Bowl, although not much progressed after their opening conversations, and will pick back up in the coming weeks, a league source said.

It’s not a given that Stafford will remain with the Rams despite both sides’ initial openness to work out a deal. The Rams have to recognize that the most competitive path forward is for Stafford to return for another year and one more run while he continues to play at a high level. But the fact that coach Sean McVay and general manager Les Snead didn’t overtly commit to Stafford in season-ending news conferences basically signaled their open phone lines for a potential trade.

If there is a difference between Stafford and the Rams, it would likely be this: The Rams don’t want to make a significant financial commitment to a veteran quarterback whose long-term future or durability they can’t be certain about, and a youthful roster built through the draft is now their core identity.

Stafford’s ability — and availability — over the last two seasons is inarguable. He has missed only one game due to injury, and although he faced a couple of slumps this season, he especially excelled in the playoffs. Stafford has played some of his best football in postseason runs for the Rams, including this January and during their Super Bowl run in 2021-22. The Rams have one foot still in their previous team-building era of the early 2020s, when Stafford was the final major piece of their Super Bowl puzzle. They have another foot in their future after successfully drafting high-level starters in their previous two classes and rebuilding the core of their roster. Deciding when to step, and in what direction, is the key question of their offseason.

There are two truths: Eventually, the Rams need to secure a long-term quarterback who will grow with the roster and won’t prohibit them from paying their first- and second-year stars when those extensions are due (plus whoever comes next at quarterback). But also, their roster is ready to win earlier than many expected, so why wouldn’t they plug back in their elite quarterback and make another run?

Stafford’s wife, Kelly, recently said on her podcast that Stafford doesn’t want to “put the team in a bad situation,” but the Rams understand there is a certain level of financial respectability owed to a quarterback of his skill level and status. Would that be a sticking point for the Staffords?

An NFC executive who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity said if he were in the Rams’ position, he couldn’t get rid of Stafford because he’d be too hard to replace at his current level. An NFC coach said something similar, adding that he believed Stafford had at least one more year in him at his current level of play but noted if the Rams keep him, they’re only avoiding their future problem for that one additional year. An AFC executive said he could see the Rams trading Stafford if they could recoup enough assets (the implication was they haven’t hesitated to trade star players in the past), and a separate AFC executive believed Stafford would play one more year in L.A.

See? Things have been … up in the air, even in the perception of the broader league. The buzz around the quarterback exists for good reason: The Rams and Stafford couldn’t reach a multiyear agreement on his existing extension (signed in 2022) before training camp last summer so reworked it to frontload his remaining guaranteed money into 2024 with the expectation that they’d revisit the conversation now. Because that remains unresolved, Stafford’s future with the team remains in question, and trade speculation has only increased as the offseason has continued.

If the Rams move on from Stafford or even begin to imagine a world without him, they don’t have a viable backup plan in place. Jimmy Garoppolo, their backup last season, will be a free agent, and 2023 fourth-round pick Stetson Bennett was drafted specifically to be a long-term QB2.

McVay really likes Garoppolo — more than some league sources whom I spoke with expected him to — because of his amiability, work ethic and understanding of the offense. Garoppolo, though, would be a bridge to the next franchise quarterback, whether that player arrives via draft or trade. League sources were generally split on whether the Rams/McVay would work best with a rookie or continue McVay’s preference for a veteran’s experience in his constantly changing offensive scheme. Draft experts agree that this incoming quarterback class is somewhat thin and certainly top-heavy. As of now, the Rams don’t pick until No. 26 in this year’s draft.

Free-agent quarterbacks include Sam Darnold (who has ties to L.A. in a roundabout way through Minnesota Vikings head coach Kevin O’Connell and other staff) — though Darnold would not be cheap and the Rams would have to be certain of his long-term fit — Justin Fields, Jacoby Brissett, Drew Lock, Marcus Mariota, Daniel Jones and Mac Jones. Aaron Rodgers is also expected to be released by the New York Jets, and though Rodgers’ highly publicized television appearances are not a natural match for a head coach who only wants his players focused on football (and not weekly TV shows or podcasts), it should be noted that the Rams were interested in Rodgers’ potential availability before trading for Stafford in 2021. Also notable: Neither McVay nor Snead would cede any roster control to Rodgers, who has a history of bringing his friends to his new teams. Similar to Garoppolo, such a move would only serve as a bridge to whatever investment comes next at the position.

Overall, the Rams will not spend big money or trade/draft capital on a quarterback unless they believe he is their present and their future. The latter component is one of the reasons Stafford’s status even remains in question. My sense is that many within the organization want to get something done with Stafford but are also thinking about the ascending young group of players, including some with early contract extensions coming due over the next two years. There’s a financial point and/or term limit the Rams are unlikely to cross, even if Stafford undoubtedly gives them their best chance to make a run in 2025.

Zooey wrote:

So any trade for him would have to be good enough to appreciably increase the Rams’ chances in 2026 and beyond. You don’t close a SB window for marginal improvement. You would only do it for definite, longer-lasting improvement.

That’s my take. Stories attract attention, but a lot of it is just noise.

Closing a playoff window just over money with a star caliber qb would be one of the worst management moves the Rams could ever make.

Now maybe if they talked Marc Bulger out of retirement….

wv wrote:

But its not like Stafford has only ONE additional year left. The way QBs are protected now, he could very well have two, three, or four elite years left. Even if he missed half the season in some of those years, the critical thing would be his availability in the playoffs.

Yeah, that’s the other thing. The Rams don’t NEED to replace Stafford for quite a while.

And Colin Cowherd, while he’s certainly right that the Dodgers are great for baseball, is completely wrong on trading Stafford to the NYG for the 3rd pick, and then dealing that down into multiple picks in order to trade up NEXT year for a QB. That’s just nonsense. The Rams have some “doable” off-season holes to fill, and doing that will put them in the hunt next season. The defense just got better and better all year, to the point that the Rams defense was looking like it might be championship caliber as it was. The DL became so dominant that they could harass their way to a Lombardi. So…why would you throw away Stafford and the next couple of seasons on an unknown QB who will need to learn the game? That makes no sense. If they unloaded Stafford now in an effort to reload at QB the year after next, they would be getting up to speed at QB right when Nacua, Turner, Young, Williams, and Avila were expiring. They’re not going to bet it all on Jimmy G.

And the Rams won’t do that because they’re not stupid. We’ve already seen them aggressively get pieces to put them on top, and they’re close enough to do that again. They will figure it out with Stafford.

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by Zooey.

Rams letting Matthew Stafford's agent talk to other teams to gauge contract value https://t.co/KekMzfTz4x pic.twitter.com/4lVsNfUEu0

— Rams Wire (@TheRamsWire) February 21, 2025

💻 @TomPelissero

Could Matthew Stafford really end up playing somewhere other than Los Angeles in 2025? When might a decision be made on his #NFL home?#NFLCombine #NFLDraft pic.twitter.com/T4KFvFZHbN

— Rich Eisen Show (@RichEisenShow) February 21, 2025

zn wrote:

Peter Schrager@PSchrags
My latest insights on Stafford and the Rams.

Me: vid is in previous post, this article is based on that vid.

…

Peter Schrager shares latest on ‘really tough, awkward situation’ with Rams and Matthew Stafford

Cameron DaSilva

. https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2025/02/24/matthew-stafford-contract-trade-rams-news-peter-schrager/?taid=67bc92e4584611000198d69b&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=trueanthem&utm_source=twitter

Every day that passes by without a resolution to Matthew Stafford’s contract situation seems to be a step toward the Los Angeles Rams splitting with their quarterback. While reports indicate the Rams would like to keep Stafford, it all comes down to money. https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2025/02/17/rams-matthew-stafford-future-stay-los-angeles/

He wants more than he’s currently set to make in 2025 but the Rams appear unwilling to meet his asking price, so they’ve gotten into a standoff – similar to the one that dragged out last offseason leading up to training camp. Only this time, there’s far more urgency to get something done.

NFL Network’s Peter Schrager is friends with Sean McVay so anytime he talks about the Rams, it’s worth listening to. On Monday, he provided the latest update on this ongoing situation and it doesn’t sound like much progress has been made, if any.

Schrager started by saying the relationship between Stafford and McVay isn’t fractured at all, and that this is strictly about money. According to Schrager, Stafford wants more than $50 million per year, which would be at least a $10 million raise in salary compared to his current deal, which pays him $40 million annually.

Stafford’s agent has gotten permission to talk to teams about what they’d be willing to pay him and Schrager reported there are some teams that would give Stafford more than the Rams are currently willing to pay. https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2025/02/21/rams-trade-agent-talk-other-teams-contract-value/

“There are teams that are willing to pay him more than what the Rams are currently willing to pay him,” Schrager said. “The question is, does Stafford want to go to those teams? And what are those teams willing to give up? It’s all very awkward because McVay and Stafford may end up together, and it’s just like, ‘Well, that was water under the bridge. That was business. We got to keep the emotional side separate from the business side here.’”

Albert Breer of Sports Illustrated reported on Monday that at least four teams have thrown their hat in the ring for Stafford, so there’s no question he will have a market if the Rams decide to trade him. https://theramswire.usatoday.com/2025/02/24/nfl-insider-says-at-least-4-teams-have-thrown-their-hats-in-the-ring-for-matthew-stafford/ Of course, it may not come to that if the Rams can get a deal done with Stafford, but it doesn’t look like the finish line is anywhere in sight for these two parties.

And while things are amicable right now, Schrager says, it could get ugly if the negotiations drag out.

“It’s a really tough, awkward situation because there is a real friendship, they have a Super Bowl championship together, and there’s no real bad blood at the moment, but the longer this thing proceeds, the uglier it could get,” he said. “I don’t know if I could envision a world where the Rams go on without Stafford. I think everyone would love Stafford to come back, but I don’t think the Rams are going to break their back to pay Matthew Stafford top dollar. And if he’s OK with that to go pursue a Super Bowl, fine. And if he’s not, no shame in that. Go get the money and you think you deserve.”

What makes this negotiation even tougher is the fact that neither side really has the leverage. Schrager floated Aaron Rodgers as someone who would probably love to play for McVay in Los Angeles, and he also mentioned Jimmy Garoppolo as another potential option for around $10 million.

The Rams aren’t necessarily handcuffed at quarterback if they lose Stafford, even if he does give them the best chance to win a title. And as for Stafford, he clearly has teams interested in acquiring him, which takes leverage away from the Rams. It’s also a question of whether Stafford would want to move his family across the country to a city like Pittsburgh or New York.

“So you look at the teams and you look at the options for the Rams,” Schrager said. “Say you trade him to the Steelers. Are the Steelers willing to give a first- or second-round pick and pay Matthew Stafford $50-plus million? And is Stafford willing to go play in Pittsburgh in the cold weather? And Kelly and the four girls, are they going to want to go move out to Pittsburgh? How about the Giants? They’re not giving up the third overall pick, but would they be willing to give up the 34th overall pick and pay him $55 million? If that’s the case, does that make sense? The Raiders are an option. Who knows? You can go down the list.

“The issue with this year for Stafford is if they do trade Matthew Stafford, there are quarterbacks who would likely love to play for the Rams. Aaron Rodgers lives in Malibu in the offseason. You don’t think he’d want to just mix it up for a discounted price and play with Sean McVay for a year? Of course he would. So, who has the leverage here? Where are they going to go? Jimmy Garoppolo, they could pay $10 million in McVay might think, ‘I could win games with Garoppolo.’”

With seemingly no end in sight, it’s hard to know which direction this negotiation will go. The Rams want Stafford back but aren’t going to give him a blank check. Stafford would probably like to finish his career in Los Angeles but he wants to be paid what he feels he’s worth.

Stafford’s agent and the Rams are expected to talk this week at the NFL combine, which could move things along. But with no hard deadline, this could go on for a bit longer without a resolution.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/sean-mcvay-the-rams-want-matthew-stafford-to-continue-as-their-quarterback

Sean McVay: The Rams want Matthew Stafford to continue as their quarterback

The Rams still want Matthew Stafford to be the team’s quarterback. But it’s more complicated than a binary up or down, yes or no proposition.

Stafford has received permission to talk to other teams. Recent comments from coach Sean McVay to the Fitz & Whit podcast make it clear that the two sides began exploring other options once it became clear that they didn’t agree on his contract value for 2025.

Stafford is currently due to make $27 million this year. That’s less than half the current market rate of $60 million.

“And so at the end of the day, we had something in mind, he had something in mind, and nobody was right or wrong,” McVay said. “And then, ultimately, you’re saying there’s a ton of interest, because this guy’s an incredible player.”

Still, McVay made it clear that the Rams want to keep Stafford.

There’s no discrepancy on us wanting him to continue to lead the way and be our quarterback,” McVay said. “The interesting and the challenging dilemma and dynamics within this are, ‘Hey, how do you continuously as a head coach look at the short term and the long term and be able to figure out what does that really look like?’ There is no dispute — and let’s not get it twisted in regarding to anybody wanting him to be our quarterback. Now, there’s layers to it. You have to be able to say, ‘Hey, how do we continuously build? How do we support him? How do we make sure that he’s getting what is his worth relative to those things?’”

So, basically, they want him, but they don’t want to pay him what he wants. And so they gave him the opportunity to see what other teams will, or won’t, pay. The apparent hope is to get him to realize that the Rams’ offer falls within the broader framework of the market.

If, along the way, there’s a team that will both pay Stafford more and give the Rams a sufficient package of trade compensation, a trade could happen.

For now, it’s not imminent. But the door is open. The toothpaste, out of the tube. The question is whether both sides will be able to put it back in.