Simply adding a QB as good as Watson on your team immediately makes long-term success more likely for that team. Especially in the NFC where Rodgers and Brady won't be playing much longer and Watson would probably be the best QB in the Conference after that.
The last season he played he won 4 games.
They made it known begining of last season. I don't have links from 7 months ago but it was known they were in a precarious cap situation and had to do something to get under when they re-signed Ram. At that point I was beating the drum for Armstead. At this point after analyzing his history a bit more I've moved toward indifference on him, can take it or leave it.
Thus the use of the word "long-term' success. He also made the playoffs the 2 years prior.
A QB elevates his team no matter what!
My point is not that I think their approach is the correct one or an incorrect one. For me, the results will justify the approach one way or the other. My point is that 'Cap Hell' is a term that's thrown around way too much and is an over-exaggeration. That's it.
True true. Ends so justify the means I suppose, only if you win. I mean the Rams were a testament to that last year.
He elevated them to 4 wins.
I can't have what both ways?
