Re: You're underestimating the impact of his loss...

Quote
Rams43

Quote
dzrams
I see it differently. Easley was projected to be the starter opposite Donald. And he's been a very effective player in the past.

It appears that you see him as nearly the least important member of the D. I don't agree.

I'd rank losing him equal to, or possibly above, losing Alexander, Joyner, and Barwin.

Above Barwin because he's a free agent that no one knows what he will provide and we have plenty of other options that could be plugged in Barwin's spot.

I'd say it's an equal loss to Joyner and Alexander because the players that are on the line have a higher importance being closer to the ball. That's why most good coaches and GM's talk about building starting with the DL and OL.

So as good as Joyner and Alexander are, they are both safeties which is one of the more lower important positions on a D. Moreover, their 3rd round draft pick, Johnson could easily replace either one.

Despite having a lot of possible options on the roster to replace Easley, I don't have much confidence in any of them. None of them have proven to be any good including Westbrooks.

I'd also rank the impact of his loss equal to, or possibly above, several of the players on offense you list too.

Ultimately, I think the Easley loss is going to be very impactful and it's unfortunate. It will be felt.

You make good points, dz. As usual.

This gets very subjective when we're talking about the Easley loss impact vs some of our "lesser" starters, so I can see where two reasonable people could have differing opinions.

My reasoning comes down to the perceived drop off difference in depth behind the different starters for the various players. It is my opinion as of now that we can more readily plug in another player at Easley's position than at some others. But I will concede that I could well be very mistaken.

In any case, the loss of a starter could have been much, much worse than Easley. Again, no disrespect to Easley intended.