Good post. But to clarify, no one said "how simple and easy" it would be to replace ROT. It IS however relatively easier. That's just true.
It goes like this.
If you keep Hav you lose someone else. Keeping Hav may assure you don't have to look for another ROT, but keeping Hav ALSO means you WILL have to look for some other position. There's just no way around that.
And so part of the calculation is this. It is just true that it is relatively easier to replace a right OT than many of the other positions in question than what value do you put on locking in your ROT. .
So to me it matters that it (actually and genuinely really) is relatively easier to find solid ROTs. And there's a good reason for it. Every single college OT capable of playing in the pros can play on the right side. That's a large pool to draw from. Only a handful can play on the left. There's just more bodies that can play on the right. Meanwhile Kromer has a long record. No ROT has every played poorly for him--they have all been solid. That includes guys who did nothing before him and were not as effective after they no longer played for him.Three things occur to me.
First, the esteemed collaboration of Snead/McVay/Kromer came to the conclusion that extending Hav was in the team best interests. One factor being the cap hit, but they gladly decided to extend Hav and at market rate. So, I think it’s safe to say that the professionals feel that he is very valuable and affordable and will not prevent them from retaining priority FA’s in the future. IOW, the decision by these respected professionals speaks volumes.
The second thing is that Hav and this entire OL are playing lights out. How valuable is that? Our entire magnificent O is only possible when this OL is dominating. The axiom “It all starts in the trenches” applies here. Hav looks like a bargain to me.
The third thing is that it seems like a role reversal between us from our debates during the AD extension times. Then it was me arguing for the need to save cap room for upcoming FA extensions and it was you arguing that we could afford AD at $24-25 million and still retain up to 10 high dollar players with no problems. Kinda funny how both of our perspectives have switched, huh?
