Rams trade for Titans CB Roger McCreary

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
duanevalle22 said:
To me there is no upside or downside. I think it was a (just in case) move if someone gets injured. I'm just worried if he plays and he gets burned, I will have to endure the "McCreary Is a Bust" threads. I think we should all consider managing expectations.
Click to expand...
I mean, fans are gonna fan - and that often means ridiculous over reactions to the last play. We (and I lump myself in here) tend to think that if there is a big pass play on offense that the defender who is ultimately closest to the receiver is not only to blame, but that they got burned and that they apparently suck. It doesn't matter what the defenders actual responsibilities were on the play - its just the results.

But most of us know that we do that - and we over react and then we ultimately develop some even headedness about it.

For me, the potential upside is clear. If the kid plays well, the cost was so low, its almost like they gave him to us. And with a cost that low - how can he really be a bust? A bust is someone that we spent somewhat significant resources to get who then underperforms. This is the equivalent of getting a free lunch - if the food sucks, stop eating and move on.
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
Reactions: Mojo Ram, Pupped, BigRamFan and 3 others
12intheBox said:
I mean, fans are gonna fan - and that often means ridiculous over reactions to the last play. We (and I lump myself in here) tend to think that if there is a big pass play on offense that the defender who is ultimately closest to the receiver is not only to blame, but that they got burned and that they apparently suck. It doesn't matter what the defenders actual responsibilities were on the play - its just the results.

But most of us know that we do that - and we over react and then we ultimately develop some even headedness about it.

For me, the potential upside is clear. If the kid plays well, the cost was so low, its almost like they gave him to us. And with a cost that low - how can he really be a bust? A bust is someone that we spent somewhat significant resources to get who then underperforms. This is the equivalent of getting a free lunch - if the food sucks, stop eating and move on.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. there's no downside here.
I can see where it could be really impactful in the "dime" formations... literally allowing Lake to be fee to be used in multiple ways.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: hotanez, DzRams, Memento and 1 other person
They're not gonna replace Lake with McCreary. Lake is playing too well, you don't fuck with that, you leave him alone.

I'd start McCreary on the boundary, and go with Durant field side and see how that works for a few games. Now granted... Williams has been coming on. But that's a good problem to have. Competition will improve the end result on the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hotanez and jrry32
Merlin said:
They're not gonna replace Lake with McCreary. Lake is playing too well, you don't fuck with that, you leave him alone.

I'd start McCreary on the boundary, and go with Durant field side and see how that works for a few games. Now granted... Williams has been coming on. But that's a good problem to have. Competition will improve the end result on the field.
Click to expand...
It would be Williams and McCreary. Williams is playing too well to sit, and Durant isn't doing anything special.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back