Quote
dzrams
Quote
zn
Quote
Rams43
I see plenty of room for two reasonable people to have opposite opinions on this topic, zn.
Debate points can be made for both positions.
My take is threefold.
First, these moves were a big part of taking a 4-12 team to 13-3 and a SB berth in just two years. How does one place a value on that?
Second, it’s only been 2 years for this strategy. Cooks is already a HR and Fowler and/or Peters could yet be, also. If that happens, this strategy is a rousing success.
Third, it’s unknowable what Snead might have done with those spent picks. Probably very darned well, I would think. But without the aggregate experience of the 4 mentioned players, I wonder if we would have seen the SB results in ‘18.
So, like I said, I can see good arguments for both positions. Nice discussion.
I think going to a superbowl in 2 years when not ready as a team is not all that great an accomplishment. They would have gotten there sooner or later anyway. (Besides what if they took a corner with the 2018 2nd round pick. Then you don't need Peters.) So I would easily trade an early superbowl for the more steady, time-honored team-building approach and a more solid team. (Plus I don't think they would have done all that differently in 2017 without Watkins anyway. If anything it might have gotten McV off of trying to reproduce the Washington offense and instead learning sooner to make something out of the personnel he has.)
My bet? They don't do the trade-a-high-pick-for-a-short-rookie-contract thing anymore.
...
They got to the SB so I can't agree that they "weren't ready" despite scoring only 3 points. The D played lights out with Peters' contribution. As a team, they were definitely worthy SB participants IMO and ready (whatever that means).
I also have to challenge your other assumption. If they took a CB in the 2nd round of 2018, you're assuming that guy would be any good in his rookie year. Sorry I can't buy that. You often remind us that rookies don't usually come in and perform great right away. We're not gonna make a speculative exception here.
So IMO we should assume, as usual, that a rookie CB would not be starting and definitely would significantly underperform Peters especially what he provided in the latter half of the year.
It's a value judgment. You're acting like this can be decided by an argument of fact and it has nothing to do with that. They weren't ready for a superbowl. I thought so beforehand. Them getting there and playing the way they played just helped confirm that judgment for me. You can think differently if you want since it's value judgments both ways.
There are no "assumptions to challenge." Again, as if there were a "right answer." Taking a CB with the Watkins 2 was a parenthetical minor point. The real issue is that in the long run the more stable, effective strategy is NOT to trade away high picks now for short rookie contracts, but to use the picks. Because whether or not they lost a superbowl in year 2 (which is just not a good argument to me), they are in a position where they either pay for short contracts now or let the players go and get lower picks, when I would much rather have the players from the original high picks
now (and they would have the players for 4 years).
I think that's more cost effective, I think it's the better personnel strategy, and I think it's better team building.
As I said, the fact that they lost a superbowl (and looked bad on offense doing it) does not convince me of the other strategy. I would prefer the strong, more longterm viable personnel and team-building approach.
And again I bet they don't do it anymore. I think the problems with that approach are abundantly apparent. But again this is all preferences. I get your vote on what you prefer (though it's disguised not as a vote but as a statement of fact), but my vote is decidedly different.
....
....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2019 11:48AM by zn.
