Quote
zn

Quote
Rams43


So, a 1st for Cooks was okay, but a 2nd for Watkins or Peters was not?

Well that's not what I said.

My point was that Watkins and Peters were rentals and I do not like rentals for high picks. (Cooks wasn't a rental--they signed him to an extension immediately).

You;'re trying this thing where you think you find the "problem" in my logic. (As opposed to the more realistic thing where you just state you have a different opinion.)

Meanwhile twice now you haven't actually responded to what I actually said.


...

I agree that Cooks wasn’t considered a rental. He was the one McVay wanted over Watkins in ‘17, after all. And, as you say, the proof was in the fact that they quickly extended him.

But where is the evidence that Watkins or Peters were rentals? Suh sure seemed like a likely rental. Maybe CJ, too. Talib looks like a likely 2 year rental because of his age, as well.

But Watkins, Peters, and Fowler? Not so much. All young with high potential if scheme fits. It is my opinion that they were (and maybe 2 still are) for longer term status if the respective players played well.

If you recall, they attempted to extend Watkins only to find that his market value exceeded theirs. Worked out to their advantage, of course.

Jury is still out on Peters and Fowler, but I think it’s a stretch to try to put either in a “rental” cubbyhole.

Finally, once again, I applaud the draft route in building a team for the long term. We certainly agree there, especially with Snead calling the shots. But sometimes one must use FA’s and trades to jump start a team to get into a SB. Especially, from a standing 4-12 start.