EXTREMELY reductionist logic that shows zero understanding of Pareto optimization. Whether Rosen is the franchise or not (currently unknown), the optimization principal would allow strategic actors to make an optimal decision (in this case huge compensation for a decent WR and a pretty good LT), still with the Pareto parameters of it possibly detracting from a previous choice or belief (in this case whether Rosen is the goods or not). In fact, strategic actors in business, wartime environs, and even courtrooms often can make decisions or choices where they believe garners more potential advantage even to the detriment of other highly valued decision calculus. While no one on this board is skilled enough to evaluate a QB at the NFL level or they would not be a message board pirate, we can apply Pareto logic and should all be intelligent enough to understand the basics of applying Pareto distributions and decision in one area can be weighed as is vice in strategic connection with outcomes we do not have data for.
I am shocked tha the simple idea of trading a good LT somehow cannot be seen through an optimization prism that may not be highly correlated to the decision prism at the Qb position. This is really basic stuff from a betting, econometric analysis, and even algorithmic roster building (aka what commoners call money ball). Lets try to do better and apply more nuanced rigor then falling into the simpleton trap of "oh they trade LT must not like QB."
