Are LA Rams being too aggressive in free agency so far?

Even this early in the new NFL Free Agency market, mumblings and whispers are forming about the LA Rams‘ early flurry of activity. The Rams have been struggling for the past several years to free up sufficient funds quickly enough to make signings and extensions obviously simple.  Instead, the Rams fight the salary cap constantly, a battle of pushing money into other years, locking up guarantees, and then changing their mind about the player.

Dead cap and all, the Rams dove headfirst into the 2021 NFL season with the trade for Detroit Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford, and in the process had to swallow over $22 million of dead cap money for the unrealized signing bonus for quarterback Jared Goff.

It all falls under the category of being aggressive.

And yet, the tolerance for aggressiveness is as unique as a fingerprint, it seems. One person applauds the Rams organization for ‘taking chances’ and not being too complacent. But others see the Rams as being too reckless with their finances, too quick to change their minds, too quickly to commit, and too often penalized for jumping into the deep end of the financial pool, only to realize that they can swim to safety.

LA Rams’ free agency tactics are a matter of perspective

It’s a viewpoint, a perspective that will be debated over and over. The truth is that accepting risk for reward is very subjective. Some will defend their views by pointing to the Rams record as one of the most successful NFL teams. Others will point to the endless battle over the team’s finances, the amount of dead cap money, and the fact that the Rams simply cannot add the players to get them over the top.

Even the action to extend a first-round qualifying tender offer for defensive back Darious Williams is now being subjected to public scrutiny by Pro Football Talk.

Realistically might a second-round tender have been enough? Clearly, the Rams cannot afford to pay the market value rate for a top cornerback this year. So why run the risk of having to do so to save a little bit? If another team did submit an offer letter, the Rams would be chastised by many for not extending a first-round tender offer.

Floyd’s value to the Rams

A similar situation developed upon the news of the LA Rams terms to re-sign veteran outside linebacker Leonard Floyd. The terms, though undisclosed, did include the fact that it will be a four-year deal worth $64 million, or an average of $16 million per year.

Floyd was cut from the Chicago Bears in 2020 and signed on with a one-year prove-it deal with the LA Rams for $10 million. Well, he proved it. So he was looking for the contract that reflected his contribution to the Rams defense in 2020.  Some expected Floyd to sign a contract in the $12-13 million per year and did not expect that to be with the Rams. So they have concluded that the Rams were too aggressive, resulting in overpaying Floyd.

But as we pointed out in our article, the price point for Floyd this year was quickly set by other signings, and the Rams stayed in their lane in terms of valuing their contract in terms of how the NFL market for outside linebackers had inflated. And to that point, the performance of Floyd on the Rams defense left little to be desired. He was excellent in all aspects of the defense.  The remaining players in that position all have some questions or flaws in their performance.

Could the Rams have allowed Leonard Floyd to sign elsewhere? Of course. But by doing so, who would the Rams be able to start on the edge in 2021? And that’s the problem. The Rams may have saved the money, but the defense would suffer as a result. The Rams are not in the mindset of putting a little aside for the future right now. If you are unhappy with that higher level of risk/reward, this will not be a pleasant off-season.