Snead: Rams Eyeing 5-8 Years With Stafford

Matthew Stafford‘s contract runs through the 2022 season. The Rams managed to navigate the primary free agency period without reducing their new quarterback’s cap number, but they are interested in extending Stafford.

Les Snead provided a timeline for the team’s future with Stafford. Snead envisions the 2009 No. 1 overall pick playing for the Rams well beyond his current contract, which would make sense given the cost to acquire him — multiple future first-rounders and change. The 2021 season will be Stafford’s age-33 campaign.

I don’t think we did it thinking two years,” Snead said of the trade during an appearance on The Athletic’s 11 Personnel podcast (via Rams Wire). “Based on his age, you can legitimately think five to seven, eight years if you look at what Drew (Brees) has done. I don’t know if we’re going to get into Tom Brady, right? Too many things going. But with quarterbacks of his pedigree, a lot of those guys have played into their late 30s, for sure. So that was definitely the vision with Matt.”

The Rams do not have modern experience deploying quarterbacks with Stafford’s experience. Under Snead, the team’s two primary passers — Sam Bradford and Jared Goff — did not last until age 28 with the team. Kurt Warner was out of St. Louis at 32, before his seventh NFL season. Stafford turned 33 earlier this year and has battled injuries in recent years. He missed eight games because of a back malady in 2019 — his first absences since 2011 — and detailed a few issues that bothered him last year. Stafford underwent thumb surgery recently.

Stafford’s recent injuries notwithstanding, the Rams are committed to the 12-year Lions starter. While Goff and Sean McVay‘s relationship progressively deteriorated last year, Snead insists the Rams did not want to jettison the former No. 1 overall pick for the sake of doing so. Stafford being available changed the equation.

To do a move of that magnitude involving quarterbacks, specifically involving Jared, there definitely needed to be a Matthew Stafford on the other end,” Snead said. “We were not going to be stronger by moving Jared for a draft pick, per se. That wasn’t the case, and I think it did take someone of Matt Stafford’s pedigree, ability, experience, all those things, skill set to make that move.”

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

View Comments (33)
newest oldest

33 comments on “Snead: Rams Eyeing 5-8 Years With Stafford

    • bencole

      No he’s not. Part of me wants to think he’ll be better now that he’s out of Detroit, but he’s had a lot of weapons over the years in the Motor City

      • Tatsumaki

        You do realize he has no control on defense correct? His best defensive teams were in Swartz era and during that time only had a defensive rating in top 10 once. Outside of Calvin Johnson who did he throw too? Who was his running back? O-Line was also never top 10.

        • cka2nd

          He’s had some decent wide receivers outside of Johnson, but you’re right about the defenses, and he’s had a decent running game maybe once in his 12 years, if I’m being generous.

        • dugdog83

          Golden Tate in his prime, Marvin Jones in his prime, Pro-Bowl TE Hockenson, Nate Burleson

          • Tatsumaki

            You do realize Tate’s best years were because of stafford not the other way around. Look at his number before and after….

            Jones has had 1 year over 1000 yards….1 and is effectively a wr2 on his best days. Nate burleson really? He played 2 years for Detroit and had 500 yards both seasons. Only had 1 year with over 1000 yards and that was with Minnesota.

            I swear some people act like stafford had Julio Jones, roddy white and Calvin Ridley and tony Gonzalez for his career. Nate burleson that’s rich hahahahhaa

            • cka2nd

              Burleson played four years with Detroit, not two, but he missed 10 games of his third season and seven games his last year there, 2013. In his first two years, 2010 and 2011, over 30 games, he caught a total of 128 passes for 1,372 yards and nine TD’s. He was a solid WR2 when he was healthy in Seattle and Detroit.

              Pro Football Reference is our friend.

          • secretsatan

            I love all the Lions fans conveniently leaving out the fact Detroit had the best WR in the game the last time they were relevant. The Lions killed his love of football as quickly as they killed Barry Sanders’s love of the game too. Stafford had weapons but seriously Nate Burleson? Go away.

      • fisher40

        He’s a good QB and very talented but the team around him has never been that good except megatron. If he gets the protection and good WR’s in LA and with that defense they have. They’ll always be in the top 2 in the NFC. They just have to get past the NY Yankees of the NFL. And that is the Packers

      • Tatsumaki

        Keep in mind the price was high to offload goffs bad deal. Makes this deal look a lot better when you factor that in

    • amk1920

      The casuals love to underrate Stafford. Lions win 2 games a year without him. Just watch how ugly it’s going to be with Goff. He’s not in the top tier of QBs like Mahomes and Rodgers but easily in the next best level.

      • Tatsumaki

        @amk1920 gets it. Lions were lucky to get 8 wins all because of stafford. Goff will get them 1-16 real fast next season without a defense carrying him.

    • Steezy

      I’m not even talking W/L, he’s been top 10 in qbr like twice in his career when playing a full season. To say 8 more years of him is crazy lol. The best you can hope for is he maintains what he’s done the past couple years until you have first round picks again, and hope you can keep together a top 5 defense.

      And to add to the weapons everyone has already mentioned, he also had Kenny Golladay last year. His weopons in la really aren’t that much better than what he’s had already.

      • therook2525

        Are you serious, Kupp and Woods are in the top 3 in yac and are both 1,000 yard receivers. Akers is a stud and Higbee is a pro bowler waiting to happen especially now that he has Stafford. Oh and did I forget to mention that now he’s going to have that top 10 defense he never had before? Now he has weapons and he knows it and his confidence is already at an all time high and that will make a difference as well.

        • Steezy

          They’re better, but Golladay, Amendola, Marvin Jones, and Hockinson, are really not that much worse.

          • Tatsumaki

            Marvin Jones is a glorified number 2. 1 year over 1000 years, creates zero seperation in routes and is more of a possession receiver. Golladay is a 1 hit wonder so far, hasn’t shown consistency throughout his career. Amendola is always injured, much like desean Jackson recently. Hockenson is better than higbee though imo

            How about staffords line o lions? Ranked 27 last season, Rams top 10. Line plays a roll in buying time to make reads and extend plays.

  1. mils100

    I feel like this is a make or break year for Stafford. I’ve always felt he is a solid QB but not a top guy. He’s always had the excuse that the Lions are the Lions or they had a lack of overall talent. I can’t imagine they don’t make the playoffs but he needs to win playoff games this year.

    • cka2nd

      He’s one of the better 4th quarter comeback and game-winning drives QB’s in the game, better by that measuring stick than most of the greats, even, at least in the regular season. He’s OK in the post-season, too, he just hasn’t got there that much.

    • rct

      Dude has thrown for 45,000 yards and almost 300 TDs despite playing on some awful teams. I doubt he views this season as a ‘make or break’ year. He’ll be fine. If the Rams falter this year it won’t be because of Stafford.

      • mils100

        Rams made 2nd round of playoffs w/ Goff. Defense is strong. Stafford is brought in to make a deeper run – if he doesn’t do that, yes, he will be partially to blame as that is why he was brought to LA.

        • rct

          My point is that Stafford is already great. There’s nothing make or break about him and to suggest otherwise is silly. If they fail to go deeper than the second round, no one will be to blame because only four teams in football go that far. The season will have been a success.

          If Stafford puts up his normal numbers and the Rams falter, anyone blaming Stafford is a fool.

  2. mike

    George Blanda played until he was 50, so obviously Stafford should be able to play until he is 50 also.

  3. Dick Magee

    Lions fan here. Stafford’s a good QB. He’ll make the circus passes from all angles, he’ll scramble more than most think and he’ll hit the deep pass as good as any. Overall a good QB. With all that said, he will cause Ram’s fans fits with his inability to be accurate on the short passes and crossing routes. Stafford is the king of the high/low/behind the receiver short pass. His inability to hit on the short pass consistently will drive you crazy. His failure to hit receivers in stride will stall out clock consuming drives. Stafford’s best when it’s 3rd and 20, he struggles with 3rd and 3.

    • secretsatan

      If Stafford is as good as Lions fan want you believe he is, the only way he achieves anything more significant than Goff is by winning a Super Bowl for them. That will not happen. But it could be worse: The quarterback who finally wins Detroit a SB probably hasn’t been born yet.

  4. davidkaner

    This could easily beca win/win. Stafford needed/deserved a new place to try to win. He had weapons but the lack of defense meant he was always behind. He had very few 100 game rushers so he never had a run the clock guy. Not for lack of trying. Many wasted picks at RB. Even traded up for one. So no D, no RB, he will be better in LA. Detroit will benefit by having 3 picks 2 of which are 1st rounders. Goff is probably a two year experiment. Don’t be shocked if Fields or Lance are there at 7 and they draft a QB. Ideally, they get a bundle for the pick and look at QB next year. Lions are a 5 win team and getting a top 7 pick again.

  5. HubcapDiamondStarHalo

    I’m not as familiar with Stafford as perhaps I should be, and while I don’t remember him as being particularly injury prone… when he IS hurt, isn’t it back issues? If so, 5-8 years is a long time to be counting on/hoping for…

  6. jeb39999

    5-8 years? They might keep him that long but you know he is not going to play at a high level beyond the first 2-3 years. He is just saying stuff than no one will remember 3 years from now when they cut him.

  7. forwhomjoshbelltolled

    Most football fans view of Stafford is clouded by tryptophan.

    Pretty much the only time he’s been relevant and on display.

Leave a Reply