Quote
zn
Quote
Rams43
Quote
zn
Quote
Rams43
Why did the Rams use their 90th roster spot on a DT? Hmmmmm?
Is that an indication of some dissatisfaction with their DT corps?
Were they simply in love with this kids potential and think he might be a gem?
Are they really pleased with their depth at every single other position group?
I don't think that they needed him for a camp body at that position, did they?
Kinda curious when one really thinks about it, huh?
I mean, weren't there any promising players out there at the following positions:
A serious competitor for GZ as PK.
A potential backup C.
Maybe a CB candidate.
A promising deep Safety that they've had their eye on.
But no, they added a DT. Makes me wonder just what's below the surface that I'm not seeing. Not losing sleep over it, of course. But S&F always have a reason for personnel moves, sooooo...
How about this instead. They had a spot available and signed guys according to how they were ranked, regardless of position. For all we know at this point that's as valid a view as any darkly suspicious one. Notice they didn't cut anyone. They were just bringing the roster up to 90.
.
That's a possible explanation, zn.
I don't think I was being "darkly suspicious", btw. Just kinda puzzled.
Sooooo...
You think that they maybe preferred another DT prospect to a possible backup C prospect?
Or serious competition for GZ?
Just to name two more obvious apparently pressing needs?
Ummmmm... Okay.....
Well puzzlement is in the eye of the beholder 43. And some eyes just see trouble sometimes, even when there is none. My view is this. If we genuinely don't know why they did something (as in this case), when you speculate, you have to come up with as many possible positive reasons as possible negative reasons, or else you're just indulging one view.
Objectively, there are as many possible positive and neutral reasons as negative ones.
Each of us then asks himself, which ones am I personally more prone to.
For example, who said they have ANY needs? Why wasn't it just that they had an open spot, already signed some other players, and so just added the best player available?
That's as if not more likely than the "Rams fail to understand their own roster" approach.
C'mon, zn.
Who said that the Rams "fail to understand their own roster"? Certainly not me.
Heck, I even commented that S&F always have a reason for their personnel moves. I just don't understand the reason in this case.
I'm just puzzled that they chose to add a DT when a backup C and serious competition for GZ are apparently bigger roster needs. Emphasis "apparently".
We already have a front 4 considered to be the best in the league, so what chance, realistically, does this kid have to make the 53?
Now serious competition for backup C? Or even serious competition for GZ (as promised)? I would think that either would have been obvious considerations for this roster. Especially since we're talking about the 90th slot.
BTW, we both know that Fisher has final say on personnel matters. So this decision is on him, not Snead. And Fisher does love his front 4 unit, doesn't he?
I'll just say this. If the time comes in the regular season that we need a quality backup C, or GZ misses a 43 yarder that costs us a game we needed for a playoff spot? Well, I'll remember this conversation.
Hopefully, neither will be the case. But then again, both are far more likely than this new kid making the 53 as a DT on THIS front four. IMO, of course.
.
...
