ESPN analyst proposes Raiders as landing spot for a Matthew Stafford trade

We knew that losing to the Arizona Cardinals would be bad for the L.A. Rams, but nobody could have predicted that one loss in Week 2 would have NFL analysts theorizing which teams would be the best landing spots for Matthew Stafford. With an 0-2 record and four key offensive starters headed for injured reserve, including the Rams top two receivers and two interior offensive linemen, ESPN’s NFL Live broached the subject of when it would be a good time for Les Snead to start taking phone calls about Stafford.

Analyst Mina Kimes made sure to look to the dugout before swinging at the 3-0 pitch, noting from the beginning that L.A. could get some key players back soon and that there was no reason to panic just yet, but on the topic of what teams should inquire on Stafford if he hit the trade block, she brought up the Las Vegas Raiders.

“If the (Rams) were to make that decision, I want to pitch one, the Raiders? That is a very, very good defense. Davante Adams is still one of the best receivers in the NFL, Brock Bowers looks like a dude, imagine...I’m just throwing it out there.”

.@minakimes pitch for Matthew Stafford to the ... Raiders 👀 pic.twitter.com/H4AiwnE5l5

— NFL on ESPN (@ESPNNFL) September 17, 2024

The topic of whether or not the Rams would even consider trading Stafford, what they could get in return, and which teams would be interested is not something that anyone was saying about Matthew Stafford two weeks ago when he was the consensus best quarterback in the NFC. This includes Kimes and Dan Orlovsky in a segment for NFL Live about six weeks ago. Neither of them said that the Rams should trade Stafford right now, or ever, but nonetheless it only took two games to start throwing out trade scenarios, which you would not do if you expected the team to rebound.

Keep in mind that even if the Rams go 0-4 or 0-5, trading Stafford will be no easy task.

First, you have to rule out all of the teams out of contention.

Second, you have to rule out all of the contending teams that like their quarterback.

Third, you have to rule out all of the contending teams that dislike their quarterback but are pot committed, which means teams like the Browns.

Fourth, you have to rule out the Lions.

Fifth, take all of the remaining teams and forget anyone who doesn’t have enough cap space for what’s left on the $23.5 million in salary that the Rams owe Stafford this season. There are maybe eight teams that can afford Stafford and it is probably not by any coincidence that the only one of those eight that makes sense is the Las Vegas Raiders.

So then trade Stafford to the Raiders, right?

Either they win more games with Gardner Minshew fresh off of a victory over the Ravens in Week 2, in which case they don’t want Stafford no matter how much rational sense it might make. Or they lose games and want to bench Minshew, but are they now too far out of contention in the AFC to expect Stafford to help by the time he’s onboarded in Week 10 or Week 11?

Then there’s the matter of what the Rams would want to get back for “the best quarterback in the NFC”, which is presumably nothing less than a good first round pick.

It is very difficult to get a team to give up a first round pick when they know you want to get rid of the contract and they know that the trade market is at most them and one other team.

So it’s very hard to trade Matthew Stafford in the middle of the season anyway.

It’s also too soon to even think that the Rams should trade Stafford, as the next five quarterbacks they’re supposed to face are Brock Purdy, Caleb Williams, Malik Willis, Matthew Stafford Gardner Minshew, and Sam Darnold.

This is the coach that took a team to the playoffs the year after going 4-12. A team that won the Super Bowl the season after barely making the playoffs. And a team that rebounded from 3-6 last season to the make the playoffs again. Is it too soon to talk about trading Stafford?

It’s too soon to talk about trading Christian Rozeboom.

If trading Matthew Stafford isn’t a “next year” thing, it’s probably a never thing.