This came up cause out there, in the away places (as Mainers call the non-Maine parts of the world), there was a debate about whether Tavon was irreplaceable.
To me, saying a player is “irreplaceable” means you simply cannot maintain the same production and quality of play without him. Donald is an example of that, for me.
The debate came up because I said it would be very hard to replace the multiple weapon aspect of Tavon’s play. He is both a running and a receiver and because he’s both he’s also a decoy.
But that to me does not mean Tavon qualifies as “irreplaceable.” It seems to me that you could move on from Tavon and field a pure receiver type (which I don’t think Tavon IS) and get yards that way.
So it comes down to how much you value the multiple weapons thing. If you value it, then, it is worth noting that not many players (if any, really) can be that type of multiple weapon. That is simply a matter of genetics…not many players (if any) can do both things like that.
But if you value the pure receiver aspect more, then, yeah, you can find guys to replace Tavon.
But none of that, to me, make him “an irreplaceable player“ the way Donald is, or the way Rodgers is with the Pack.
You CAN replace him if you are willing to let go of the “multiple weapons” thing and just shift to a pure receiver type.
What then is an “irreplaceable player”? And, who then IS an irreplaceable player for the Rams, besides Donald?
.
.
Agamemnon
