Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
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?
|
Perhaps I'm misreading you, but here's the way I'm seeing your posts.
You seem to resemble the thoughts of Joe Gibbs back in the 1980's when he drafted quarterbacks. He selected them, then put them on injured-reserve for years before he'd let them sniff the grass of a regular-season playing field. We all know that you can't do that anymore because you have to find out sooner rather than later what kind of player you've got.
There's no formula set in stone for when a player is ready to start. I get the idea that you believe that general managers and front office guys draft players with the long-term crystal ball in mind -- that this year, we should be drafting a replacement for say ... Clinton Portis or Santana Moss -- that the process should be in place now to groom their eventual replacements.
My argument is that they aren't looking
that far ahead. The pick the guy who they think can best help their team
as soon as possible.