The Los Angeles Rams have been getting positive marks for their acquisitions all offseason, starting and ending with two blockbuster trades for Trent McDuffie and Myles Garrett. But the whole could be worse than the parts, at least according to ESPN. Seth Walder, the network’s analytics expert, posted his annual offseason grades on Wednesday and the Rams came in near the very bottom.
Walder gave the Rams a C+ grade for their offseason moves, citing the Ty Simpson draft pick as a low point and arguing that the upgrade from Jared Verse to Garrett is not substantial enough to justify the investment.
“Verse alone offers more surplus value — the difference between what he is being paid vs. what he would be paid on the open market — than Garrett over the next two years. Even though Garrett will make below-market money from the Rams, Verse is also a very good edge rusher (this cannot be overlooked!) who is making next to nothing.”
The article praises L.A. for acting with urgency during this Super Bowl window maximizing Matthew Stafford’s remaining years, but Walder doesn’t believe the Rams should have included draft picks if they also had to give up Verse.
Advertisement
It’s a sentiment than many Rams fans agreed with when they found out that Jared Verse was going the other way to the Cleveland Browns.
But what if the Garrett trade ends up bringing a certain Hall of Famer out of retirement?
“There’s one X factor that I didn’t originally consider, though. If this deal results in Aaron Donald coming out of retirement, then Garrett’s worth to Los Angeles specifically would increase even further. Overall, I was quite harsh on the Rams when I originally graded this trade and have somewhat softened my stance since. But I still feel it was not the best choice the Rams could have made.“
Walder also criticized the Rams for giving up a first-round pick (and more) for McDuffie, if they also had to pay him at the top of the cornerback market. L.A. extended McDuffie for $31 million per season, the current record at the position. He does, however, think the moves makes sense strictly as it pertains to increasing the Rams’ Super Bowl chances in 2026.
“It was one of two moves the Rams made at cornerback, their biggest weakness from last season. They also signed (Jaylen) Watson in free agency on a $17 million-per-year contract. I thought this was a very good signing to address a need, and the Rams didn’t have to give away any more draft picks.“
But Walder is confused by Snead’s decision to also draft Ty Simpson, if the Rams want to increase their Super Bowl odds in 2026. Simpson is the yin to McDuffie/Garrett’s yang, but does it lower L.A.‘s chances of winning a championship right now? It depends on who you ask. Sean McVay insists that no player in the draft would have helped them in 2026.
“Selecting a player who won’t play without a Stafford injury is the opposite of maximizing their current window. And it looks even stranger after the Garrett trade. It’s not because backup quarterbacks don’t matter — they do — but a veteran backup could have been had for much less capital.
Not to mention that Simpson was a reach at No. 13; the Rams could have traded back and still had a good chance to select him later. The argument that it wasn’t the Rams’ original pick (it was the result of the Falcons trading up to draft James Pearce Jr. in 2025) and therefore was “extra” is irrational — it’s still worth the same! It was a big missed opportunity to add a non-quarterback (like a third wide receiver) who could have helped in 2026.“
While Walder gave most teams a B- or better, only five teams had a worse grade than a C+. That includes the Cardinals, who got a D.
Advertisement
Whether you vehemently disagree with ESPN, or believe there’s some truth in those criticisms, one side of the coin is undeniable: The Rams got better in the offseason.
Was it at the cost of their future?
Read the full article here
