Along with everyone else here I hope one of those down the draft picks turns into a quality player, meaning at least one. Hey it would be great if they all did. But I think the point is that competition by itself does not necessarily yield a quality player, as last year's competition between Ducasse and Winters showed. Given the draft status of those receivers, it is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that none of them will become quality players. I hope not, but can hardly count on my hope coming true. But as a general matter, the point stands. Competition sounds nice, but it really is better to have quality players.
1. That's cute that your using your ignore list as a threat. Do you honestly think I care? Seriously, I mean, this plays right into my entire point. 2. You just did it AGAIN in your rebuttal! "When I call someone a homer, they are a homer". ALL HAIL KING BIG BLOCKER, ANNOINTER OF THE HOMERS.
And you can anoint these quality players how? By just having the right 5 of the top 10 picks in each draft? By signing mid-career average players to big deals or mid-career tier 2 stars to huge deals? There's no way of knowing who is going to be a quality player at the NFL level until those guys hit the field. That's why 1st round picks bust so often and 6th and 7th round picks become stars now and then. If you think it's better to have fewer guys that you know more about than a crowded depth chart that is less known I'll refer you to Darrelle Revis knee and Santonio Holmes foot for advice. I'll refer you to Kris Jenkins knees and Braylon Edwards sore and beaten frame at 29. I'll refer you to Jim Leonhard's season ending injuries back to back years. I'll let you consult Damien Woody's back some. The thing that the big crowd gives you is a much better chance to develop the quality depth that gets you by issues like those.
Realistic I think is both a goal, as in striving to be realistic, and also a concept that is based on assessing the most likely outcome, whether that outcome is bad or good. An optimist looks at the future and tends to ignore the "reasonable" prospects of bad outcomes. A pessimist tends to ignore the prospects for good outcomes. But you already know this. From my own perspective, there are probably more than two kinds of homers, but there are at least two. There are those who think if they come here and post optimistic things, somehow that will make those things more likely to occur. I know that sounds like a completely ridiculous concept, but that does not mean there are not people like that who post here. The other kind is the kind who genuinely believes that good things are more likely to happen than bad on a going forward basis. I have read that being an optimist in some ways is less stressful, and can literally improve your feelings about your own day to day existence. I can see that cynics and pessimists certainly seem to suffere by being so. I believe cynicism is also often an excuse for inaction, for not getting involved in things. But despite the foregoing, I personally need to balance a rosy outlook with a cautionary one. That is especially true of my experience being a Jet fan. For me, I can see no other way of being one, given the history of this team.
Enlighten me here. How is a player labeled as "quality" without a competition? You claim competition isn't the complete answer, but last time I checked, playing a professional sport is competition, thus causing the great players to rise to the top.
About the homer thing, I was trying to use a little humor. OF COURSE I have my own opinions about who is and who is not a homer here. But if someone is called a homer, they can admit it, show why it is not true, or fail to throw off the appellation. As far as having opinions, am I not entitled to have my opinion the same as everyone else here? My main point in any event is you lied about my posting style because you don't like what I say.
Injuries can happen to anyone. I will give you that bench depth is the key in minimizing injuries to your starters, obviously. But bench depth alone will not win games for you. It is the quality of your starters that is more significant. You also know quite well that past performance in the NFL is a much better metric for judging future performance than how scouts rate college players.
Which involved competition. You keep ignoring that before they became that great player and while they were in their "past" they were involved in a competition
You can have your opinion, sure, just don't push it off like it is fact. Look, everyone here can see it but you so it's clearly not just me picking something random out of the blue. You have a problem where you can't differentiate your opinion from fact. Any time someone disagrees with you it's because they don't get something or something is wrong with them. Again, if it was just me noticing it, I would back off. But it's not just me, it's a lot of people. You toss the word "homer" around far too generally. I was once called a homer because I didn't question a certain signing or lack of signing, I don't remember what it was. Your defense, obviously, was that I was a homer. Meanwhile you could open up another thread and see that I was questioning another signing or lack of signing... so how am I a homer? Someone is only a homer to you when they disagree with you. If you'd like me to point it out, I will. Trust me it's not hard to find examples as the day goes on.
When a player is drafted, he doesn't become the starter from day one. That player needs to compete for the starting job and take it from the current starter on the roster. To become great, one must compete. To keep a roster spot, one must compete. To maintain greatness, one must compete. There is always someone behind you trying to take your job. Competition is everywhere. Your claim is false
Perhaps I lost track of the argument, but I thought that the question is whether it is better to have a player with a track record of past success than a competition among players who do not have such a track record.
In order to have players with track records, you need to spend a lot of money in free agency and damage your cap and roster for future years. The Seahawks are the complete opposite of your argument. Draft picks that turned great. Exactly what Idzik is looking for. Youth, found through the draft, that turn into greatness.
It is an urban legend around here that Seattle does not find players in FA. In any event I never said the Jets should only stock players in FA. But I do think only using competition among unproven players is overrated here by some.
