Latest post of the previous page:
No I mentioned James a couple of times. Besides, this does not boil down to 2nd contracts--you can find solid ROTs on rookie contracts. Kromer has done that before. And, in relation to the "good as Hav" thing, I had several responses. One is that Hav is not so good as to be irreplaceable--I already mentioned ROTs who are better (largely because they are more balanced and better pass blockers). I also pointed out that it's simply not hard to find a solid ROT while in comparison other key positions are more vital, harder to replace, and harder to find top performers to man them. Keeping Hav costs you someone somewhere, so who are you willing to lose?Dick84 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:40 pmBut you keep talking past Ja’Wuan James signing.zackn wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:24 pmYeah outliers happen. The thing to watch is if he raises the OL market next year, or is treated as an exception. I say market forces are going to treat that as an exception---and one that gets criticized. The thing NOT to do is to treat an exception as a norm, even if you want to for some reason.
When you say it’s cheap and easy to replace a RT, I simply point out that getting one as good as Hav is neither.
The thing *not* to do is ignore the marketplace or the value of the player on your roster.
What this gets down to is choices and preferences. That';s value judgment territory. For you,what you consider to be a top ROT is important to the team for any number of perfectly understandable reasons. For me, since I think it is far easier to find an at least solid ROT (and Kromer has never had a BAD one), then I would prefer the resources go to positions which are more vital overall and where it's harder to find "keepers." That too is perfectly reasonable...I think we just differ on a value judgment.
Anyway. I figure what this IS NOT is clash over "truth." You could build a team your way AND my way and end up with perfectly good results in either case.
So yeah it's value judgments.
To me ROT is not a position where you invest in a guy longterm. Other positions rank higher for me when it comes to that. What drives the choice is investing a big contract in one position over another (and I think it does get down to that.) There's only so many big contracts you can carry, and being a rare team with both a "franchise qb" and a "top defender" to pay for, the Rams situation is just a bit tighter. To me it's fine to see it in that light since I think (for many good reasons) that finding an AT LEAST SOLID ROT is just not this difficult thing compared to other positions. (For example the Rams may ALREADY have 3 viable prospects who can play ROT, by next year anyway, and yet they are not even sure yet if they have an edge rusher---and that's after spending at least 5 picks on a trade and some draftees).
We just see it differently. There's no "truth" contest.