Well, there's your problem. You don't understand my philosophy. I think top tier DTs that provide interior pressure are incredibly valuable and important. Doesn't mean I want to go out and use our limited cap space on Suh.
My philosophy is to KEEP OUR TALENT. I don't go banging the table to overpay every good/great player in free agency.
For all practical purposes, we CANNOT go and get him. You inventing a scenario where the Rams have to sacrifice other assets to sign Peterson is not PRACTICAL. If the Rams were swimming in cap room like the Jaguars, sure, pay the man. But we have limited money available. And we need to budget intelligently for next year to keep our homegrown talent.
There's nothing practical about signing Peterson.
Keyword is "keep". Meaning that I already had him.
This is definitely different then my understanding of what you meant. I mean, you started off by saying that if the Colts don't want to pay Faulk that you would take him off their hands. That isn't exactly keeping talent, its signing someone via Free Agency or I guess a trade that required spending money on a player not homegrown. But that is different from what you expressed. However with this philosophy I believe we are on the same page. Keep home grown talents because FA is always a gamble and you almost always overspend on elite talent via FA.
Honestly I didn't realize the Mcoy situation played out a lot like Faulk's did. Just hadn't thought about it really. And in the trade situation you don't really get into a bidding war. I guess my argument kind of fizzles out once that misunderstanding got cleared up. Thanks for explaining.
