Quote
Rams43
Quote
zn
Quote
Rams43
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?
I never do the " management is always right" thing. (And I am a longtime big defender of Snead, but as a personnel guy). And that trio is very green at team-building anyway. They are not going to be infallible. So that means everything is open to discussion. Which means the "I always side with management as a default setting" response is just not an argument. It just isn't. Mostly I don't even respond to it. It's a simple rule of conversation--everything is open for good discussion and debate, and there is never one clincher argument that just ends good debate, including the "management is infallible" non-argument. Like everyone else, even the best team managers are never 100%. Again---that means there's room for fair discussion.
And the same OL can play lights out with a different ROT. Shrug. So that begs the question, why put limited cap resources (namely the big contract) in at ROT when soon they will have to replace then pay for a left OT, a center, and a guard...and all of those positions get paid more across the league (for good reasons).
My position on cap issues has not changed in the least and in fact I am applying the exact same principles I did in the Donald debate. My view is that you can only have so many big contracts, so you tie up the absolutely best, elite or at least indispensible players, like Donald. I don't put Hav on that list. Putting Hav on that list means (IMO) that you WILL lose someone who SHOULD be on that list (and should be because they are much more indispensible than a far more easily replaced solid ROT).
....
Ummmmm...
Where to start?
Well, of course everything is open to debate. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
This trio “is very green at team-building”? Seriously? I would submit that this trio have made very few personnel mistakes thus far. Don’t think this is one, either.
Given the choice of choosing the football wisdom between the Rams trio and a message board poster, even a very respected one such as yourself, it’s a no brainer for me. Sorry.
Anyway, I’m comfortable with agreeing to disagree on this Hav topic.
I’m uncomfortable giving this trio carte blanche treatment. No one is infallible, look at the mistakes the Seahawks have made since building a SB team.
I argued for Hav on his own merits. I think there’s a good chance he becomes a John Runyan level RT. That’s good enough for me to justify extending Hav and not losing him to a huge FA contract like the Titans lost Runyan.
I think the trio does have a plan to extend the players they view as their core, including Peters and Goff. The others are all up for debate, IMO.
~ max ~
“The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity.” - Alexander Hamilton
