Re: For the D&G's, the true definition of a bust...
posted at 5/14/2013 7:41 PM EDT
In response to BassFishingII's comment:
In response to zbellino's comment:
In response to TrueChamp's comment:
In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:
In response to zbellino's comment:
People use the word bust in various ways to support their own arguments on BOTH sides.
From a high first I expect probowls. A second half first a standout player at least.
Second rounders must be starters.
Third rounders should at least be on the team as contributors/downs guys. Special teamers.
Fourth/Fifth, I'm happy if they are depth/competition for a few seasons.
6-7 Just make it through camp and provide competition.
For someone to truly be a "BUST" not an argument bust, they really have to fall beneath my expectations by three levels.
Freak injuries on players without a history, of course, don't make them busts. They are just unfortunate selections. Players drafted for "value" because they have an injury they are recovering from or a history of nagging injuries are in my opinion busts if injuries derail their career because your GM took that gamble.
Good summary, though I might qualify it slightly by saying a "starter" is anyone in the core 30 or so players who are heavily involved in almost every game plan.
What if a team has 12 2nd and 3rd rounders over the last 5 years, and say that team already has a SB caliber roster in place. would it be fair to say this team doesnt need all of these players to stick? Would it also be fair to say it would be more difficult for said players to stick then if they were drafted by the Oakland Raiders?
If you are using 2nd and 3rd round picks on spots that are so well manned that the kids can't beat them, then you are a terrible drafter. You should be drafting to spots then that really need help. And every roster in the NFL has a few spots that are thin, even the SB championship teams.
That's not necessarily true. You might have one or two CBs that won't be on the team the next year so want a year of grooming in their development by taking them in the draft before your CB expectedly walks. Like us, with Talib.
You're smarter than that, dude.
There is no black and white recipe with regards to how to draft. Also, draft classes shift in terms of strength or depth.
Well, then that negates the question TC asked. If the position is stocked with a SB caliber player, it wouldn't be stocked with an expiring contract, which is a need. Thus, the player mentioned wouldn't be losing out on a spot because of competition ahead of him.
RE: Drafting a CB because Talib is on a one year deal is a need pick. Once Talib is gone, let's just say, and Ryan (for the sake of argument) was a second rounder (he wasn't) then he "busts". It wasn't like he lost a roster spot to Talib ... because Talib was the expiring contract.
TC is proposing something that just doesn't happen. For instance ... if you have three good starting LBers in a 43 and a backup .... and you use a 1st or 2nd on another LBer and he can't beat them out.... you are simply daft as a GM. It sounds like an Al Davis "best player available" move.
Second point, totally true. It depends on the draft. I don't expect a whole lot from the lower half of the 1st this season .... to be frank .... it was a long second round in my eyes.
But those are just my rough guidelines. I try to stick to them.
Others just label everything a bust or success to suit an argument.