Quote Originally Posted by RAMarkable
but this could be more an indictment of Kennedy's failings rather than a strategic move.
Um, no. It seems pretty clear to me it's a strategic move. Otherwise Kennedy would be replaced completely.

Also please reference Haslett's recent comments (per Howard Balzer) that he's been very pleased with Kennedy.

No offense, but you're grasping for straws on this one.


Quote Originally Posted by RAMarkable
This is hardly comparable to a starting DT who plays an essential role in the middle of the defense.
It's fairly safe to assume that a back-up tight end is going to see more time in Linehan's offense than a player backing up a position in Haslett's speed defense that is not an every-down position.

Since the starting nose tackle isn't always on the field, he's not going to get as worn down as an every-down lineman would, and thus, won't need spelling nearly as often, making the need for a good back-up NT less important than a back-up TE who fills a clear and regular role in the offensive strategy.

Furthermore, why do keep referring to a starting DT? When we talk about Watson, we're not talking about a starter. Kennedy is the starter. There's absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Watson would be starting for us.

If anything, he'd be a back-up since (1) our very talented but jaded (thus comparible) third round DT isn't starting for us and (2) Watson himself isn't starting in Arizona.

So let's drop this "starting DT" thing when talking about Watson, okay?


Quote Originally Posted by RAMarkable
If Kennedy doesn't pan out we have no other prospects or options at this vital position.
If Kennedy doesn't pan out, we have an option. His name is Jason Fisk. He was a starter last year in Cleveland, so I would hardly say he's simply collecting a paycheck. Like it or not, and it's clear you're in the "not" category, his presence on the roster makes him an option.

But if Kennedy doesn't pan out, then the Rams can address it next spring via free agency or the draft. It's a pretty basic solution, and let's be realistic here - the Rams are not one back-up DT away from the Super Bowl.

Besides, I seem to think that if a run stuffing nose tackle was a "vital" position in this defense, the Rams would have either (1) made a stronger attempt to resign Ryan Pickett or (2) stayed put at 11th overall and drafted Haloti Ngata, a stud NT prospect. They did neither - in fact if they spent the 11th round pick on a DT, it likely would have been a quick pass rusher in Brodrick Bunkley instead of Ngata - which should tell you how vital the NT position is in Haslett's scheme.


Quote Originally Posted by RAMarkable
Umm...who is the inconsistent one? Why I do believe it's Mr. Kennedy
If your view of Kennedy is that he's inconsistent, then you should be the last person who would want to bring in another inconsistent young tackle to compete with him and possibly rub off on him. That's why you need to bring in a veteran leader with experience, a player that you simply shrug off as chopped liver.

You complain about Kennedy being inconsistent, yet claim the Rams should have brought in another inconsistent tackle. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this argument? :x


Quote Originally Posted by RAMarkable
Er... like quality NFL defensive tackles grow on trees?
You seem to think Watson is a very good talent despite having not played a single game in the pros. That's fine. But why then is it objectionable for me to think then that we could find a talented DT in next year's draft class or next spring as a free agent?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the Rams finish this season with a big need at NT, they'll have the chance to sign, draft, or trade for one.

I think we've really said all we can say on this topic. How about we come back to this after the season and see (1) how Kennedy has performed, (2) how Watson has performed, and (3) if the Rams are in desperate need for a young NT? Sounds like a plan to me.