The First Round and Determining the "Best" Prospect?

[Mojouw]

I've been thinking about this a ton since the end of the draft. I see comments that relate to this posted in multiple threads. Mostly in the form of blog capsule evaluations of the draft. So here goes my question - When did it become universally expected that a player deliver a significant contribution in Year #1 because they were drafted in the first round? Almost everywhere I read, some team is getting clobbered because their first round draft pick isn't ready to start and go to the Pro Bowl right out of the gate.

I remember when we had a word for teams that counted on significant contributions from rookies - even first round ones - and that word was "bad" or "roster that lacked talent".

Now I am not saying that this can excuse sins in the first round - but does anyone else feel that you have to take in to account what a player might be able to do AFTER year 1 as well to truly grade the draft?

It is like everything is fantasy football now. Maybe I am the only one this bothers...

[teegre]

There was one of the NFL Network guys on the radio this week, and he said that the good teams are starting 1.5 (to 2) draft picks in year one. The really bad teams start 3.5 (or more).

As he said:
There is a difference between being a rookie taking over a starting job, and a rookie who has to start.

He cited the Steelers (Packers, Taperiots) as being teams who draft guys, let them develop, and those playerrs eventually take over the starting jobs when they're ready to start. Whereas, the Browns have to start a bevy of their picks, because there's little-to-nothing in front of them.

[steelreserve]

I'll let you in on a secret: 90% of the defensive players we drafted from 2004-2014 sucked ass for their entire careers. So while we were justifying it as "these rookies aren't contributing, so I guess most rookies don't contribute very much," actually the problem was that we just weren't drafting players who were any good.

No, really - 90% is no joke. 36 defensive draft picks over that time period, and Heyward, Timmons and Woodley were the only ones who became legitimate contributors. Plus I guess a handful of fringe players like V. Williams and Gay.

All the good defensive draft picks like Heyward, Timmons, Tuitt - not superstars their rookie years, but they did some things to unmistakably let you know that hey, this is promising. Meanwhile, on the offensive side of the ball, there was no shortage of players who contributed some in their rookie years, and that was a good indicator they would contribute as much or more later.

Put another way, if you go two years without showing even any good *signs* that you get it and are going to be challenging for a starting job - then you're in the position of having to be that guy who didn't get it, didn't get it, didn't get it, then all of a sudden everything clicked and you're 10 times better. That's rare. Yes, there are James Harrison stories once in a while, but for every one of those, there are 10 Curtis Brown, Joe Burnett, Tony Hills, Ryan Mundy and Stevenson Sylvester stories. Jarvis Jones and Shamarko Thomas - been here three years, not showing signs of turning the corner. Is my money on the chance that this year will be different, just "because?" Not really.

So no, it's not being spoiled-Steelers-fan, omg-sky-is-falling-cat-picture to worry if the rookies aren't at least showing some signs of life. On average, a guy's rookie season is a third of his career. Even for a star player, it's 10% of his career. It definitely is significant, and the good ones definitely tend to make a few plays and show signs of being good.

[polamalubeast]

I'll let you in on a secret: 90% of the defensive players we drafted from 2004-2014 sucked ass for their entire careers. So while we were justifying it as "these rookies aren't contributing, so I guess most rookies don't contribute very much," actually the problem was that we just weren't drafting players who were any good.

No, really - 90% is no joke. 36 defensive draft picks over that time period, and Heyward, Timmons and Woodley were the only ones who became legitimate contributors. Plus I guess a handful of fringe players like V. Williams and Gay.

All the good defensive draft picks like Heyward, Timmons, Tuitt - not superstars their rookie years, but they did some things to unmistakably let you know that hey, this is promising. Meanwhile, on the offensive side of the ball, there was no shortage of players who contributed some in their rookie years, and that was a good indicator they would contribute as much or more later.

Put another way, if you go two years without showing even any good *signs* that you get it and are going to be challenging for a starting job - then you're in the position of having to be that guy who didn't get it, didn't get it, didn't get it, then all of a sudden everything clicked and you're 10 times better. That's rare. Yes, there are James Harrison stories once in a while, but for every one of those, there are 10 Curtis Brown, Joe Burnett, Tony Hills, Ryan Mundy and Stevenson Sylvester stories. Jarvis Jones and Shamarko Thomas - been here three years, not showing signs of turning the corner. Is my money on the chance that this year will be different, just "because?" Not really.

So no, it's not being spoiled-Steelers-fan, omg-sky-is-falling-cat-picture to worry if the rookies aren't at least showing some signs of life. On average, a guy's rookie season is a third of his career. Even for a star player, it's 10% of his career. It definitely is significant, and the good ones definitely tend to make a few plays and show signs of being good.

Polamalu was a bust in 2003.....

[polamalubeast]

Also, Cam Heyward has almost no played in the first 2 years....He was a non-factor in 2011 and 2012....

[steelreserve]

Polamalu would be the exception rather than the rule, and he was pretty obviously not a bust by his second year. Heyward took longer to fully come into his own, but I definitely recall him showing flashes.

Comparing either of those to a Jarvis Jones, who has just sort of been drifting along with the tide for three years, there is an obvious difference.

Or a Shamarko Thomas, who has been doing the equivalent of slamming himself against a brick wall harder and harder for three years - which, while impressive, is unlikely to make the wall move - and you can tell the difference there too.

[Born2Steel]

How much falls in with the 'rookies don't start' mentality that was the LeBeau era? Rookies not contributing year 1 when they don't get the snaps to contribute, hardly speaks to the rookie player's ability. A true BUST doesn't become a bust until time to re-sign. If the FO says no thanks, that's a bust.

[teegre]

I'll let you in on a secret: 90% of the defensive players we drafted from 2004-2014 sucked ass for their entire careers.

I'll let you in on a secret: 90% of the defensive players in any draft from 2004-2014 sucked ass for their entire careers.



But, we've down this road before. No point in banging our heads against the wall. Agree to disagree.

[Mojouw]

I am only talking about the first round.

The idea being that to take the argument to its logical extremes that a "instant starter just insert draft pick" is a better (or at least will earn a higher grade from media types) than a pick that takes a year or two to develop.

Let's move off the Steelers. What about a guy like Xavier Rhodes? Drafted later in the first round after several corners went off the board. Viewed as a bit raw - not an instant #1 CB starter. Played some his rookie year and flashed promise. Started his 2nd year full time and is now the Vikings #1 CB.

Was that a bad pick because they left more day 1 starting players on the board when they took Rhodes?

Now before you argue that Burns and Rhodes are not the same player - I get that. I'm just saying that this draft "analysis" thing has largely gotten out of hand and now we are setting almost nonsensical standards.

[teegre]

I am only talking about the first round.

The idea being that to take the argument to its logical extremes that a "instant starter just insert draft pick" is a better (or at least will earn a higher grade from media types) than a pick that takes a year or two to develop.

Let's move off the Steelers. What about a guy like Xavier Rhodes? Drafted later in the first round after several corners went off the board. Viewed as a bit raw - not an instant #1 CB starter. Played some his rookie year and flashed promise. Started his 2nd year full time and is now the Vikings #1 CB.

Was that a bad pick because they left more day 1 starting players on the board when they took Rhodes?

Now before you argue that Burns and Rhodes are not the same player - I get that. I'm just saying that this draft "analysis" thing has largely gotten out of hand and now we are setting almost nonsensical standards.

As polamalusabeast pointed out: message boards circa 2003 disagree.

[Cyphon25]

I haven't followed the draft closely for all that long so I am just putting out how I think it would be looked at. First round is obviously the most valuable round and you are expecting the players there to be the best/most NFL ready even if you don't necessarily trust them to take over day 1. It is where franchise QB's are typically grabbed and you get them a lot of the time expecting them to be your day 1 starters. So I think that is where a lot of the expectation comes from.

The other side of that is also correct. If you have a really good team that means you have good players that are hard to dethrone and you are taking draft picks later so expectations should be tempered. Being that we are Steelers fans on a Steelers forum I will speak more specifically to them. The reason the talk is so heavy around us is because we are so close to an SB and the thought many of us have is that we are just a couple of pieces away from that next step. If we got all "raw" guys it doesn't sound like we have actually added anything to that this year.

For me personally, I am actually okay with that. We could have been in the Super bowl without the AB injury and Golden is already going to be an upgrade over Will Allen. Bell will be an upgrade over Williams (albeit a small one given how Williams played), Green will be an upgrade over Heath (pains me to say but Heath was on the downswing) and Dupree will hopefully take a 2nd year leap. Blake being gone is an upgrade over Blake being on the roster.

So for my money, we are still the SB favorites and I don't mind having raw additions that may not contribute. That doesn't mean I am necessarily happy with some of the picks (still would have taken Bell over Davis), but time will tell.

[pczach]

I've been thinking about this a ton since the end of the draft. I see comments that relate to this posted in multiple threads. Mostly in the form of blog capsule evaluations of the draft. So here goes my question - When did it become universally expected that a player deliver a significant contribution in Year #1 because they were drafted in the first round? Almost everywhere I read, some team is getting clobbered because their first round draft pick isn't ready to start and go to the Pro Bowl right out of the gate.

I remember when we had a word for teams that counted on significant contributions from rookies - even first round ones - and that word was "bad" or "roster that lacked talent".

Now I am not saying that this can excuse sins in the first round - but does anyone else feel that you have to take in to account what a player might be able to do AFTER year 1 as well to truly grade the draft?

It is like everything is fantasy football now. Maybe I am the only one this bothers...

You're not the only one this bothers.

The expectations of fans in regard to rookies starting has gotten completely out of hand. Of course, everyone would like to see a player be able to come in and immediately be a star, but that is rare. The reality is that almost all players drafted aren't ready to start immediately at any position other than RB. That's because RB is such an instinctive and reactionary position, and there is much less to learn before they can be put on the field and be an effective player.

Maybe the worst part for me is listening to fans start criticizing a guy like Bud Dupree, because they think he should have already had 15 sacks in his rookie season. Just being good enough to get on the field and contribute in any way is impressive for a rookie. Everyone wants to see quick growth, but sometimes it's about something that they really need to work on in the offseason. Specific training to strengthen areas that will help them win at the point of attack, or working on technique, combined with martial arts training to help the use of their hands. There are a lot of reasons why players don't start or why they aren't prepared when they are first drafted.

Too many people that don't understand the game or the way it is played make far too many comments about things they don't understand. It's frustrating at times to listen to people give up on a player after his career is 24 games old, and start to criticize them and call them a bust. Some players just take a while to develop for a number of reasons.

Fans have the right to say stupid things and be impatient and be wrong. It doesn't mean they should.

At some point if there is no production, they will never be good football players, but people give up on players far too quickly and expect far too much, too soon.

[Count Steeler]

pczach & mojouw:

Are we not simply seeing the microcosm of societal tendencies? Everything has to be instant gratification. Most people can't wait 2 minutes for their popcorn to pop in a microwave oven, let alone wait 2 years or more for an athlete to develop. On the most part, I find impatience on the upswing and patience a lost virtue. "Give me my 12 year old Scotch, and I want it now!"

Kudos to the Steelers for usually staying the course and usually being more right than wrong.

[teegre]

pczach & mojouw:

Are we not simply seeing the microcosm of societal tendencies? Everything has to be instant gratification. Most people can't wait 2 minutes for their popcorn to pop in a microwave oven, let alone wait 2 years or more for an athlete to develop. On the most part, I find impatience on the upswing and patience a lost virtue. "Give me my 12 year old Scotch, and I want it now!"

Kudos to the Steelers for usually staying the course and usually being more right than wrong.

[pczach]

pczach & mojouw:

Are we not simply seeing the microcosm of societal tendencies? Everything has to be instant gratification. Most people can't wait 2 minutes for their popcorn to pop in a microwave oven, let alone wait 2 years or more for an athlete to develop. On the most part, I find impatience on the upswing and patience a lost virtue. "Give me my 12 year old Scotch, and I want it now!"

Kudos to the Steelers for usually staying the course and usually being more right than wrong.

That's so true.

Society as a whole expects everything right now. Instant gratification is wonderful when your cellphone works correctly, or your microwave meal comes out perfectly. However that doesn't work with human beings playing football.

We would all celebrate if you could just pluck a linebacker off the shelf, add water, and....Presto! You have a quality, experienced player right out of the box. Life doesn't work like that, and thank goodness it doesn't. NFL football would turn into a bunch of interchangeable clone teams.

What has made the Steelers a better organization than others is that they have generally been better at the process of collecting talent through the draft, developing that talent, and then implementing the combination of talent, coaching, and game planning on the field.

Many fans don't want to hear it, but that is exactly how they have won six super bowls and they will keep competing for more.

[steelreserve]

If you are looking only at first-rounders, nearly every one of them for the past 20 years has started for us during his rookie season when healthy - or at the very least least been on the field frequently in a rotation with the incumbent starter. It is neither impatient, nor a short-sighted "instant gratification" mindset, to expect that.

The ones who were good continued to play; the ones who sucked continued to be rotational players, sometimes for too long. I really don't see what I'm missing here apart from another groupthink "mere fan" moment.

[Mojouw]

I am not concerned with what a player does "right now" I want the player who has the better career. So many of the grades I am seeing are dinging the Steelers and other teams for taking "raw" or "unfinished" players. While I realize nothing is for certain with the NFL and the draft, I would rather take the prospect who has a career ceiling of 4 (on my arbitrary 1-5 scale) even if for the first 1-2 years of said career they contribute at a 2. For me that is a more attractive use of a first round pick than getting a guy who has a career ceiling of 3, but can play at a 3 from day one.

[Psycho Ward 86]

I am not concerned with what a player does "right now" I want the player who has the better career. So many of the grades I am seeing are dinging the Steelers and other teams for taking "raw" or "unfinished" players. While I realize nothing is for certain with the NFL and the draft, I would rather take the prospect who has a career ceiling of 4 (on my arbitrary 1-5 scale) even if for the first 1-2 years of said career they contribute at a 2. For me that is a more attractive use of a first round pick than getting a guy who has a career ceiling of 3, but can play at a 3 from day one.

i generally agree, but picking higher level prospects this way means we kind of have to take Ben's health for granted. i treat every season with Ben like it could be his last, which is probably paranoid but even with our vastly improving O-line, its really disconcerting to see him continue to rack up injuries faster than ever before.

i saw an article on Steelers Depot the other day. James Harrison is currently 38 years old, making him the 7th oldest player in the league. 5 out of the 6 who are older are special teams players. the only one older is tom brady. Ben is currently 34 years old. he gets abused like no Qb in the business, except for maybe Andrew Luck (and even then, Luck is very young and hasnt accumulated the damage Ben has). questions to think about: based on this data, how long is it realistic to expect ben to play? how long is it realistic to expect ben to play WELL? How many of those years are we willing to let early round picks that we really need to contribute sit on the bench because they're raw?

if we were going to grab a that doesnt even fit the scheme, i would have at least wanted someone with polish like Mackensie Alexander

[polamalubeast]

i generally agree, but picking higher level prospects this way means we kind of have to take Ben's health for granted. i treat every season with Ben like it could be his last, which is probably paranoid but even with our vastly improving O-line, its really disconcerting to see him continue to rack up injuries faster than ever before.

i saw an article on Steelers Depot the other day. James Harrison is currently 38 years old, making him the 7th oldest player in the league. 5 out of the 6 who are older are special teams players. the only one older is tom brady. Ben is currently 34 years old. he gets abused like no Qb in the business, except for maybe Andrew Luck (and even then, Luck is very young and hasnt accumulated the damage Ben has). questions to think about: based on this data, how long is it realistic to expect ben to play? how long is it realistic to expect ben to play WELL? How many of those years are we willing to let early round picks that we really need to contribute sit on the bench because they're raw?

if we were going to grab a that doesnt even fit the scheme, i would have at least wanted someone with polish like Mackensie Alexander

I think Roethlisberger can play well for the rest of his contract.Colbert also say that in march.

With the rules that protects the QB now it's easier for the QB to have a very long longevity....In 2013 and 2014, Roethlisberger was healthy all season...Last year he was very unlucky, since Roethlisberger had only 20 sacks in 12 games and he had 3 injuries.

If the o-line continues to play well, good possibility that Roethlisberger will be fine in 2016.

[steelreserve]

I am not concerned with what a player does "right now" I want the player who has the better career. So many of the grades I am seeing are dinging the Steelers and other teams for taking "raw" or "unfinished" players. While I realize nothing is for certain with the NFL and the draft, I would rather take the prospect who has a career ceiling of 4 (on my arbitrary 1-5 scale) even if for the first 1-2 years of said career they contribute at a 2. For me that is a more attractive use of a first round pick than getting a guy who has a career ceiling of 3, but can play at a 3 from day one.

I totally understand that, and most of the time, your approach is probably the better one.

On the other hand, at this very moment and specifically at the DB position, I'd take the sure thing over the high ceiling. First because as mentioned above, we have maybe 4 years where our star QB is in his prime and all the other pieces are in place, so the more we can take advantage of that RIGHT NOW, the better our odds of winning a championship. Second, because most of the other pieces are in place, we don't need a potential star player at CB, just a pretty good one, or frankly even an average one. To use a baseball analogy, tie game, bases loaded with no outs - all you need to do is make contact, not swing for a home run.

And the last part is that because of our track record, I do not have much faith in our coaches' ability to develop a "raw potential but needs work" kind of player into a starting defensive back. If we had it, our starters would be Gay and Cortez Allen, and CB would be a nice addition, not a dire need. In reality, the only players since Troy and Ike Taylor who have been decent starters in our secondary have been players who came from other teams.

Burns probably would've been a great pick for somebody else who has the ability to coach up DBs, but for us the guy who is NFL-ready to come in and play at a decent level is better, which is why I would've liked Alexander or even Howard.

[polamalubeast]

Also, it's been several years that many doubt of the longevity of Roethlisberger and he would not be much productive when he would be 30 years old or more because of its many sacks allowed in the first half of his career, but this is not the case, since more you are old,more you are smart and you understand more the game.

Roethlisberger is not the same QB he was in his first few years.He adjusted his style.It's very rare now that Ben is out of his pocket....

[Cyphon25]

Just to put it out there I think if the Steelers win a ring this year there is a good chance Ben hangs it up. Players on the whole seem like they are concerned more with health and potentially retiring early and this team is almost completely different than the one Ben came up with including just losing his best friend to retirement. Ben is a family man now and without me knowing any facts, my gut tells me it is on his mind. 3 rings and 4 appearances and all of the previous injuries to consider. Nobody could blame him if it did come to that.

[polamalubeast]

Just to put it out there I think if the Steelers win a ring this year there is a good chance Ben hangs it up. Players on the whole seem like they are concerned more with health and potentially retiring early and this team is almost completely different than the one Ben came up with including just losing his best friend to retirement. Ben is a family man now and without me knowing any facts, my gut tells me it is on his mind. 3 rings and 4 appearances and all of the previous injuries to consider. Nobody could blame him if it did come to that.

It will never happen because he would lose at least 60 million by taking this decision.And that's not the only reason why I think Roethlisberger will not take an early retirement.

[hawaiiansteeler]

It will never happen because he would lose at least 60 million by taking this decision.And that's not the only reason why I think Roethlisberger will not take an early retirement.

I agree, I fully expect Ben to finish out his contract...

[Cyphon25]

It will never happen because he would lose at least 60 million by taking this decision.And that's not the only reason why I think Roethlisberger will not take an early retirement.

Pretty sure Ben is already set.

Why else don't you think he would do it?

[pczach]

If you are looking only at first-rounders, nearly every one of them for the past 20 years has started for us during his rookie season when healthy - or at the very least least been on the field frequently in a rotation with the incumbent starter. It is neither impatient, nor a short-sighted "instant gratification" mindset, to expect that.

The ones who were good continued to play; the ones who sucked continued to be rotational players, sometimes for too long. I really don't see what I'm missing here apart from another groupthink "mere fan" moment.

What you seem to be missing is that many of the players that you said were good, and continued to play.....weren't so good when they started. They got better over a few years but were nothing special their first year or two starting. It's that simple.

We're talking about draft picks in general here, not just first rounders.

Were do you get this "groupthink 'mere fan' moment" stuff.

People that played the sport at any level above pee wee football know how much work and development goes into the final product on the field. It takes years at the highest level of football to become a proficient starter for nearly every player. You make it sound like guys were good enough when they came out and kept playing...like they were great right out of the gate. You seem to forget how many "fans" were saying Polomalu was a wasted pick. How he wasn't anywhere near the player they had hoped for well into his second year. Some even whispered "bust" because they expected him to dominate immediately. He didn't. That's the point. Patience is needed. If the organization didn't show the patience that many of fans lack, some of the greatest Steelers in franchise history wouldn't have been. They would have been released and excelled with another team, or they would have disappeared into the bench and special teams zone for the rest of their career with the team.

The same has happened with many Steelers draft picks. The legend of Limas Sweed started his rookie year and lives on to this day and he was a second round pick. It's not just first round picks that come under fire.

In another thread, many people are already lamenting that many of this year's draft picks are projects that can't help this year. It's right there to see everywhere you look in fan forums. This isn't a paranoid, fringe accusation here. The proof of fans thinking this way is littered all over this message board and every other Steelers message board I have ever been to.


That's what we're talking about here. Fans thinking that every high draft pick should be a starter and begin dominating as soon as they hit the field as rookies. Almost none of them do......none of them. Yet the expectations and the pressure that goes with that is cast upon these players, and they are then labeled as a "bust" to those fans within the first two years as a player.

[steelreserve]

Pretty sure Ben is already set.

Why else don't you think he would do it?

Maybe he actually enjoys playing football?

[steelreserve]

What you seem to be missing is that many of the players that you said were good, and continued to play.....weren't so good when they started. They got better over a few years but were nothing special their first year or two starting. It's that simple.

We're talking about draft picks in general here, not just first rounders.

Were do you get this "groupthink 'mere fan' moment" stuff.

People that played the sport at any level above pee wee football know how much work and development goes into the final product on the field. It takes years at the highest level of football to become a proficient starter for nearly every player. You make it sound like guys were good enough when they came out and kept playing...like they were great right out of the gate. You seem to forget how many "fans" were saying Polomalu was a wasted pick. How he wasn't anywhere near the player they had hoped for well into his second year. Some even whispered "bust" because they expected him to dominate immediately. He didn't. That's the point. Patience is needed. If the organization didn't show the patience that many of fans lack, some of the greatest Steelers in franchise history wouldn't have been. They would have been released and excelled with another team, or they would have disappeared into the bench and special teams zone for the rest of their career with the team.

The same has happened with many Steelers draft picks. The legend of Limas Sweed started his rookie year and lives on to this day and he was a second round pick. It's not just first round picks that come under fire.

That's what we're talking about here. Fans thinking that every high draft pick should be a starter and begin dominating as soon as they hit the field as rookies. Almost none of them do......none of them. Yet the expectations and the pressure that goes with that is cast upon these players, and they are then labeled as a "bust" to those fans within the first two years as a player.

What I'm talking about is that while every rookie obviously has a learning curve, drafting one who you KNOW is somewhat of a project, when you have a problem to solve right now, is not what I would do. And also that nothing limits rookies from making some kind of noticeable contribution right away, and many of them do, while others at least show flashes. That probably encompasses 75% of the ones who end up being good players for us.

The notion that anyone is demanding rookies be All-Pros right out of the gate or immediately label them a bust is just such an extreme overblown caricature that it's useless except for irritating people.

Groupthink mere fan means the people who say "Since you're only a fan, the team automatically knows better" to support their point, followed by the inevitable 3 or 4 more people who lemming that. To me that translates as "I have nothing productive to say, so I'll win the argument in my mind by insulting the intelligence of the average fan, because for some reason I don't count as one." Uh, ok, sure you don't.

[pczach]

What I'm talking about is that while every rookie obviously has a learning curve, drafting one who you KNOW is somewhat of a project, when you have a problem to solve right now, is not what I would do. And also that nothing limits rookies from making some kind of noticeable contribution right away, and many of them do, while others at least show flashes. That probably encompasses 75% of the ones who end up being good players for us.

The notion that anyone is demanding rookies be All-Pros right out of the gate or immediately label them a bust is just such an extreme overblown caricature that it's useless except for irritating people.

Groupthink mere fan means the people who say "Since you're only a fan, the team automatically knows better" to support their point, followed by the inevitable 3 or 4 more people who lemming that. To me that translates as "I have nothing productive to say, so I'll win the argument in my mind by insulting the intelligence of the average fan, because for some reason I don't count as one." Uh, ok, sure you don't.

I hear what you're saying. I know it's not the majority of fans that make the outrageous statements or demands of players. It's usually a smaller group that really drives me crazy because they just don't understand that not everyone can become an impact player in one mini-camp, one training camp, and a couple preseason games. There's usually a lot more involved than that.

The Burns pick does have the look of a guy that needs some coaching up in a lot of areas. Here's where I hope Butler is much better than LeBeau was at figuring out what players do well, and letting them do that. Adjust the scheme to allow more press-man coverage for Burns if he shows he is able to do that.

The other thing you mention is people saying the front office knows more than the fans do. For the most part, that's correct, because they do this for a living and have done it well for a long time. For me, it's more about having faith in the organization because they have been the most successful organization in the sport over the last 45 years. I do think that holds some weight.

I do think that it's perfectly fine to question what the front office does, or what the coaches do, or what individual players do. They are not above reproach, nor should they be. As long as people are making good points and well thought out criticisms, there's nothing wrong with that at all. I criticize when I disagree with what they do, but I also have faith that they know what they're doing in the big picture.

[steelreserve]

I hear what you're saying. I know it's not the majority of fans that make the outrageous statements or demands of players. It's usually a smaller group that really drives me crazy because they just don't understand that not everyone can become an impact player in one mini-camp, one training camp, and a couple preseason games. There's usually a lot more involved than that.

The Burns pick does have the look of a guy that needs some coaching up in a lot of areas. Here's where I hope Butler is much better than LeBeau was at figuring out what players do well, and letting them do that. Adjust the scheme to allow more press-man coverage for Burns if he shows he is able to do that.

That's what has me hopeful about all of the players we've taken in the last couple seasons, actually. Butler seems a lot more willing to make adjustments based on the personnel he has, rather than ramming the scheme through and wishing he had better players. That was a noticeable improvement last year and covered for a lot of deficiencies.

It'll be exciting to see what he can do after having had the first half a draft (and the first four rounds of last year's) exclusively to help the defense. Maybe Butler came in saying "a guy like Burns and a guy like Davis are exactly what I need for the scheme I really wanted to run last year" and now it all comes together. Could be. If not, then I'd say that in a vacuum, someone like Alexander would've helped more in the immediate goal of winning a championship in the next 2-3 years.

The other thing you mention is people saying the front office knows more than the fans do. For the most part, that's correct, because they do this for a living and have done it well for a long time. For me, it's more about having faith in the organization because they have been the most successful organization in the sport over the last 45 years. I do think that holds some weight.

I do think that it's perfectly fine to question what the front office does, or what the coaches do, or what individual players do. They are not above reproach, nor should they be. As long as people are making good points and well thought out criticisms, there's nothing wrong with that at all. I criticize when I disagree with what they do, but I also have faith that they know what they're doing in the big picture.

Yeah, I get that, and there is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we don't see. On the other hand, a large part of how a team works is out there in plain view for everyone, and the professionals still fuck up all the time. Could I run defensive drills in practice, or evaluate a stack of 200 scouting reports on 6th-round prospects? Obviously not. Does that mean I'm completely blind and never have a point? Also no. It's when people lump anyone who questions the team's decision into that boat that is really just a nuisance.