Generally speaking, this is the slow time of year for NFL content, so content like trade grades and wild hypotheticals are the go-to option for full-time writers, broadcasters, etc. to keep the football-crazed masses satiated.
Which brings us to a piece from ESPN’s Seth Walder this week in which he graded the three trades since June 1. That includes the low-stakes move between the Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta Falcons this week revolving around offensive tackle Wanya Morris, as well as the long-awaited
A.J. Brown trade from the Philadelphia Eagles to the New England Patriots.
Oh, and the one that sent the reigning defensive player of the year to the Super Bowl favorites.
Walder loved the Myles Garrett trade for his former team, the Cleveland Browns, giving them an “A” grade for acquiring a haul of draft picks and a impactful young player in Jared Verse. He felt far differently about the team acquiring arguably the best defensive player in the league, though, handing the Rams a “C-.”
There are a few different points made about the Rams here, and Garrett receives his fair share of praise, but this paragraph gets to the gist of Walder’s less-than-stellar grade for L.A.:
“For the Rams, the appeal of adding Garrett is obvious. The trade increases their chances to win the Super Bowl this season — and that is rightfully something to pay up for. However, I don’t think this is the type of team building that will maximize the Rams’ Super Bowl chances over the next several seasons. There is a drop-off from Garrett to Verse, but it’s not like Los Angeles is filling a hole here. After just one season in the NFL, Verse ranked at No. 10 in Jeremy Fowler’s 2025 survey of coaches, scouts and executives. Add in the massive pay disparity between the two players, and it makes it even harder to justify.”
Planning for the future is obviously important. And for guys like Walder who are especially analytically focused, future capital is always valued highly. But it’s also clear that the Rams aren’t especially worried about the future because their window is open right now. They have the best roster in football with an old quarterback and an elite coach who, at least in the fairly recent past, has already flirted with his post-coaching future. Now is the time and the Rams are going all out to maximize that opportunity. Considering all that, I find it nearly impossible to deem this a below-average move for Los Angeles, as a C- would indicate.
The kicker at the end of the analysis summarizes why it feels like the plot has been lost:
“The 2026 Rams are better today than they were yesterday. But the cost to the 2027-2030 Rams is too much to justify,” Walder wrote. “And the Browns will reap the benefits.”
It’s completely valid to give the Browns a better grade for this trade than the Rams. TST’s own Steven Ridings graded the trade in the immediate aftermath and explained why he gave the Rams a “B” compared to a “B+” for the Browns.
But the entire point of building a team is to give yourself the best chance possible to win a championship. Planning for the future is fine and important, but eventually you’re supposed to try to hoist the Lombardi Trophy. You have to take the context of the franchise in its current state into account, and that should render everything after “better than they were yesterday” moot.
If you don’t utterly love the trade for the Rams, that’s completely fair and fine. And yes, at some point the bill will likely come due, so to speak. But to give the trade a below-average grade when a truly win-now team adds an upper-echelon talent because it will theoretically affect the future is missing the forest for the trees.
