Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven
I don't question whether your opinion is "straight forward". I just disagree with it.
You draft players based on how you think they can help your team. Some will start sooner than others. If, as in the case of Rocky McIntosh it takes them 15 games before significant playing time, then I think that could be a problem.
It seems that you believe there is some sort of mathematical formula that coaches MUST follow which determines when a player is best suited to make a contribution to a team. I think that's absurd. Coaches look at game tape, they watch the progress of a player through training camp, exhibition games, the film room, and practice. Then, they make their best determination as to when that player is ready for a starting role.
They can't possibly be able to make that determination on draft day in the War Room, as you seem to suggest.
|
I think you just flipped positions on me. If you didn't, then I'm confused by your post.
Rocky McIntosh was selected (in part) as a quick fix replacement to Lavar's departure. The "build through the draft" philosophy states that we shouldn't have been counting on Rocky to make an impact for us in 2006. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't play him if he was the best man for the job (I believe he was), but that the no. 35 pick would have been better used on, say, a
left guard, since Dockery's contract was about to expire, and we could have used the depth anyway. If we had a top of the draft class guard that we could plug in this year, our offense would be all but set for this year.
Of course they can't make the "who will start opening day?" decision from the war room. I'm pretty sure that's what I said. So you agree with me then?
Draft the player who projects the best for your team down the road. Play the players who are the best players at their positions right now. Do you or do you not disagree with this?