warner28 wrote:Disagree, sometimes you have to let the younger (maybe lesser) player develop otherwise your roster gets old and stagnant leading to sharp sharp sharp declines.
It sounds great to say "you just play the best guy every year" but in the real world that is in fact sometimes a mistake because guys need time to become the "best guy"
Some times you need to play potential over current production. Tough choices need to be made.
You have 2 options at QB:
Keep signing veteran stop gaps (which is all Matt is at this point)
Go with a young guy (which is what Whitehurst is at this point) and commit to their development.
As much as some of us may want to believe otherwise, guys can't complete their development (and become the best player) till they see the field (and usually till they see the field for a full season or more).
Think of it another way:
Does 2005 ever happen if Holmgren does not commit to Hasselbeck in 2001 and go back to him after Dilfer got hurt in 2002? I've said it before and I'll say it again, Mike Holmgren got damn lucky that Trent Dilfer got hurt in 2002 otherwise 2005 very likely never happens.
Who is the better NFL QB? Dilfer or Hasselbeck? Who was better in 2001? Who played in 2001? Matt needed time even though he was not better than Dilfer, without that time he may have never become better than Dilfer but Seattle needed him to become better than Dilfer so he got the time.
Warner28, I love you man! Always precise, to the point, and composed, but sadly, I must disagree as well.
Not to rewrite history but whoâ€™s to say Holmgren did it right? Dilfer was indeed the better QB in 2001, no argument there. But Mattâ€™s improvement after he was benched and watched how a veteran QB handles a game was enormous. Had Mike truly had an open competition and played Matt in a backup role in 2001, the Seahawks may have won more games in both years.
Alas we can only speculate if it was the watching as a backup or the beating as a starter that caused him to turn his game around.
I feel, since his improvement coincided with his benching, it was the watching, reps with his receivers, and coaching his mistakes that made that change, opposed to losing games, booing fans, and sideline tirades. Of course thatâ€™s only my speculative opinion, feel free to disagree.
But more to the point of this discussion, why start a player who is by the definition of this dialogue inferior and unproven? If the superior proven player is getting older and slower, the younger faster player with more potential will beat him out in due time. I see no need to hasten the procedure with an inferior product in the name of development.
There are always opportunities to play these guys, people get hurt, youâ€™re getting your â€œGatoradeâ€ handed to you, youâ€™re doing the handing, or let him play some downs if you just have to see what he can do. You get real game experience, game film to coach mistakes, and still have your â€œbetterâ€ veteran to play another day and not forfeit games in the process.
If the guy with all the potential turns out to never fulfill that promising career, you still have the â€œbetterâ€ veteran version to hold down the fort until you can find someone who CAN beat him out.
The â€œbest guysâ€ show their skills no matter what, in camp, preseason, and their opportunities during games. Good coaches spot it, cultivate it, and then exploit it, not the other way around.
I think Carrollâ€™s a good coach and perhaps Charlieâ€™s the answer for the future. Iâ€™m just not ready to throw away ANY chances for wins for a peek into that future.