Quote
ferragamo79
thats all
so far....not working out
2 years
year one didn't play
year 2, he was bad and then got hurt
we will see about year three, but I doubt he is starting LT
I think he will be a back up in year 3....thats all......PS its ok to disagree and not name call and say I am an exaggerator
Why are they keeping him? And have expressed belief in him? (Kromer said he was improving before he got hurt).
He is and was and always will be much more of a LT than an OG.
And here's what you completely miss (and I don't know why).
You act as if only 2 Rams OL did not play well at the start of the season (first 6 games). You fixate on that. Is it because you didn't like the idea of starting inexperienced OL and because you said that you just want to be vindicated as having been right?
Well but see you weren't right. For 2 reasons.
1. The entire OL did not play well at the start of the season. That especially includes the 2 OTs. You can start 2 newbies inside if unless both OTs hold up...or I suppose at leaste one of them. They did not hold up. That was the primary reason the OL did not look good. And when an entire OL is out of sync, no individual player can look good in it.
2. The Rams OL improved a lot when 2 things happened. Whitworth got stabilized and they started Edwards and Evans. But. Edwards and Evans have even less experience in the league than Noteboom did. So if you were "right" about not starting experienced OL, this new OL with a re-stabilized Whitworth and 2 rookie starters should be just as bad. It ISN'T just as bad. So the whole thing about not starting inexperienced OL does not hold up. Edwards and Evans prove you can. As teams all around the league know already because every year teams start inexperienced newbies on OLs throughout the league, and as often as not they do fine. New Orleans for example has a rookie center and their OL is doing just fine.
Fair enough?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/29/2019 05:49PM by zn.
