Youth Versus Win Forever

I find it very like we end up with the next Matt Cassel

However, I don’t see Pete doing any roster over-haul as long as we still have a shot at the play-offs. Either way I hope pete has a real plan and I think this years draft will be a big indicator. But for gods sake I am so tired of watching Kelly grease-kleat Jennings start over thurmond.

I grouse, but I’m hopeful.

The defensive system brought to Seattle calls for very specific body types on the defensinve line. By getting rid of Tapp and L. Jackson we made room for Clemons/Brock and Bryant/Balmer.

I don’t necessarily agree with the Elephant package, but what other personnel moves could the FO make here? Start Dexter Davis? Some guys have to bide their time on the bench and learn the game through practice before they are ready.

But if they can replace young players that they don’t see fitting long term with veterans that fill a temporary role then I see no problem with that. Bill Belichek seems to find a way to plug in veteran role players while developing young talent every year.

I feel we see breakouts a lot at certain positions. Left tackles get drafted and contribute immediately while wide receivers usually take a few years. That kinda thing.

Hypothesis: Positions where potential matters more than current production (RB, QB, CB, WR) should be manned by younger, breakout players, while it’s fine to fill positions more static in variability (T, G, TE, LB) with veterans that can contribute immediately.

Clemons. He unlike the others, was relatively young enough at a position where players typically either burst out of the gate or mature slowly, to be considered “young upside” but yes, other than that, I unfortunately see Ruskell’s mistakes in a new and shiny package.

I could list Hundreds if not Thousands of cases where the youngster who was thought of as nothing was actually just that. When/if a guy like Stokley is blocking a guy like Tate the argument is valid. There are two many other factors to just make the blanket statement that young is better than old on the whole. It’s definitely not fair to say that Carroll is doing that when he had a shit pool of players and only one year to make a complete overhaul. The truth is we don’t have a lot of 3rd round high ceiling guys just sitting on the sideline behind veterans on their last legs.

If in three years you can say that guys that should have been playing are now stars in the league elsewhere that’s one thing. To just rattle off a few clear exceptions from a league wide pool isn’t a fair or valid comparison.

You can’t just throw 11 unproven guys to the wolves and see who holds their own. Nobody wants to see that. Fans won’t pay for it. Advertisers won’t support the crazy contracts.

You play your guys that you think have the best shot at developing (high ceiling) and you fill out the roster with guys that make you the most competitive. If you think you have 10 rookies that can play and will turn into something go ahead and do it. But filling out a starting unit with guys just because they are young is crazy. Let them draft some more players before forcing a youth movement on them.

who Kelly Jennings has pictures of. Because every year I think he’s going to get cut, and every year he makes the final roster.

I realize that at 27 he’s hardly in the same category as, say, Milloy, but if I had to pick one playing time decision that’s driven me nuts this year, it’s Jennings playing ahead of Thurmond. That’s inexplicable to me.

The team has a losing record and has lost it’s 6 games by an average of 22 points. They’re 27th in points scored, 23rd in points allowed, have the 28th ranked offense and the 26th ranked defense by DVOA. What exactly are we getting out of these proven guys?

At SC one of the things Carroll was known for was playing true freshman if they had more talent. I am a little surprised that attitude hasn’t shown itself yet.

From a psychological point of view, does anyone think that maybe Carroll is focused on winning now in order to justify his hiring or quiet the critics? Maybe trying to win a little leeway(sp) in order to survive a youth movement next year? Just a thought.

If someone else developes it without the growing pains all the better. Not saying they’ve been tremendously successful bargain shopping but you can’t really say the opposite either.
On playing youth for the “upside” payoff seems logical but that seems to put too much emphasis on in game learning curves. It takes plenty of bench time for a QB to gain adequate skill for his position, why does that somehow not apply to other positions? It’s a complicated game, it has to be learned

I don’t have time, i don’t know if anyone’s up for this, but it’d be interesting to see how many instances a veteran took over and is starting over a youngster, and also how many instances a young player is starting over someone who was a “veteran” or older then them. It’s probably right down the middle.

I know people keep clamoring for young talent, but i have a hard time seeing any young talent that’s available. I’m thinking mostly along the offensive line. Rob should’ve probably been kept (but again, trading for a future draft pick is kind of a youth movement isn’t it? (even if it does mean starting a veteran for this season)). Locklear perhaps has no reason for starting anymore, ha. What good guards were available? The risk in going young street FA on the o-line is more often then not you’re going to get worthless players that get your QB killed and completely handicap the offense, as well as the development of any other players on your offense. Which seems to have happened with our run game anyway. And anyway, i’m rambling.

You’ve changed my view, a little bit. Several people have pointed out that it’s best not to look at it as a mutually exclusive dichotomy, so I don’t need to say anything like that. I also know you well enough to know that wasn’t your point or your view.

I think your point is relative to the current situation, and in that context more of those who disagree with you would agree with you. You make your points so well, they are so well founded, they sometimes seem to be foundational principles themselves. I think that leads to folks thinking your perspective is uncompromising in the face of context, while I believe you started within context.

Or maybe I’m misreading you. Either way, well done.