Quote
Rams43
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.
I will spell it out again.
I said I do not like spending high picks on rentals.
Watkins was a rental. Peters may be.
I also said I don't like trades for players who are close to their 2nd contract. That;s expensive in cap terms, when you have a 2nd rounder for 4 years cheap and a 1st rounder for 5 years. So when it comes to spending high picks like that, I would rather have the picks.
I didn't mention Suh. They did not spend a high pick for him. So he does not qualify as an example of what I am talking about.
I also said that IMO they were still a playoff team without either Watkins or Peters. That they did not need to spend those high picks and in fact I think having the picks would have been better.
Peters btw was not a scheme fit, as evidenced by the fact that Wade actually had to change his defense (more zone) to fit him in. And when he did try to play Peters within the scheme (man) it was a disaster.
Fowler with 2 sacks in 8 games will probably not be worth signing and so could be a rental too. But I at least understand that mid-season with no LBs, they had to make a desperation move.
I am not going to argue about this with one poster forever, 43, especially since this is your 3rd response and you have yet to actually act as if you know what I actually said.
So let it go. Thanks.
...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2019 11:09AM by zn.
