He's not saying they're not excellent, he's saying their injuries reduce their positive impact on the team. He'll probably get killed for suggesting they go.
I don't think Okung should go but I appreciate the sentiment. If the best tackle in the league plays only 60-70% of the snaps he could play, then what what is his *real* value, is the question? If we could find a tackle who could stay healthy 100% of the time but play at 80% the level, would that be better?
The question is a bit moot however. For one thing, evaluating talent and finding that 80% guys carries plenty of risk, you could search for years and strike out. For another thing, without a crystal ball you don't know that any other new guy would stay any healthier. Nor do you know if Okung will continue to get injured. At best you can say, Okung has a history of being injured and another guy might not. That's not enough certainty to make parting with Okung a smart move.
We're agreed about the depth part. Unfortunately, at the LT position you're a bit screwed for building depth. If you have a guy capable of playing LT at a near-high level, you won't be able to afford to keep the guy. So the best you can hope for is serviceable.
When you have a lot invested, especially at the LT position, for good or for ill you're pretty much stuck hoping he can stay on the field.
Nobody should flame the guy with the usual posts ridiculing the idea that Okung is injury-prone. I mean come on, what percentage of snaps do you have to miss before that label is just fact. Nothing against the guy, great talent, but every year you go into it holding your breath, that's just been how it is. Even if the *one* of the injuries is a fluke because some guy whipped him around.
