Quote
Rams43
Quote
dzrams
Quote
Rams43
Look, I want to sign both, myself. But we mustn’t forget that we will have other studs that we will really want (and need) to extend, too.
You keep repeating yourself too. We all know that some other studs may have to be let go for cap management purposes.
So assuming Donald requires an exorbitant sum, to the degree that it's as zn says where one or two fewer "studs" will be kept in the core. Do you keep AD and let 2 "studs" walk or do you keep the 2 "studs" and let AD go?
These other "studs", do we really NEED them?
Decision time!
You are correct, dz. I do repeat myself on this type of topic. It just “triggers” me to read that relevant opposing factors are glibly ignored by some in these discussions.
I should know better than to keep mowing a lawn that’s already been mown.
As to your “other studs” reference? I’m not worried about losing mere average starters in order to keep the likes of AD or Goff. I’m thinking of Pro Bowl caliber players in their own right, such as:
Cooks
Suh
Gurley
Peters
Joyner
Saffold
Brown and Hav are not quite in that category, but they are above average starters, IMO. And isn’t Brockers coming up again?
I know, I know. We can keep some of the above and still have room for some quality players. But at some point down in the latter part of the 53 there will be players that we will have to let go for cap reasons if we’re too top heavy. Players that could have been great depth and/or major contributors in a playoff run.
Sure, all teams face this. I’m just advocating for the Rams to control costs as best they can at the top in order to result in the best possible overall contributing roster.
Goff is indispensable. AD is highly desirable, but not indispensable. That continues to be my opinion. And at some point, every extra million that is paid to AD will cost us a proven player and ultimately a win or two.
Those are the consequences for the team. For me, team trumps player every single time. There. I said it.
I think I’ve said enough. Carry on, y’all.
Wait! Don't tap out yet 43. Lol....
We're just getting to the good part. We've already talked about team building philosophies and in generalities.
What I would really like to know now is what do you do when it comes to specifics.
So for instance, on a philosophical level, I believe in paying the elite first and let the chips fall where they may on the players below that level - i.e. the good and even very good.
IOW, for me, being top heavy isn't an issue. I want difference makers first and foremost.
You seem to favor not being as top heavy and ensuring that you make room for a greater amount of pro-bowl caliber players, great depth players, and/or major contributors.
Obviously, Ideally we do it all by controlling costs. But if cost control - whatever that means - isn't possible, where do we go from there.
So hypothetically, if it turns out that the reality is that neither Donald, Cooks, Suh, Gurley, Peters, Joyner, Saffold or any of the upcoming players needing to be paid are wiling to sign team friendly deals, that cost control won't happen, who do you let walk?
If signing Donald requires a none team friendly $24M and means that Joyner and Saffold have to be let go, I sign Donald. What say you?
Out of the six names you list I already think Suh, Joyner and Saffold have a very good chance of not being back but I'd rather they walk then Donald walk.
It's a tough decision that fits my philosophy of Elite First. Truthfully, I don't think that relevant opposing factors are being glibly ignored. I think it's more that people recognize that we can't do it all. Team trumps player for me too; there's just differences of opinion in the best way to build the team.
So if signing AD requires saying bye to Joyner and Saffold, what do you do? What about Joyner, Saffold, and Hav? Or Joyner and Suh?
(I don't think they ever intended to sign Suh beyond this year anyway, so I'm not really factoring him in.)
Do you let Donald walk in this case to keep things cost controlled?
