Quote:
Originally Posted by DaFace
It's a "steal" in the sense that we've got a ton of guys with raw talent that, if things work out perfectly, could be far more valuable than the draft picks we gave for them. However, the reason that most of them dropped was that they all (or mostly at least) have question marks, and the law of averages suggests that we can't overcome ALL of those.
It definitely appears to be Dorsey's style to take a chance on guys who might have issues for one reason or another and hope to coach them up to be performers. Thus far, I can't complain, but it's not a 100% no-brainer win either.
|
Yeah, I think that's the MO. Get a strategic advantage by taking value-gambles on talent, and mitigate the risk by trusting your coaching staff to develop talent and keep the players focused and hungry to win.
There's not a lot of "Me-first" players, and I also think that comes from trusting the veteran leadership as well - guys like Tamba, Berry and DJ.
In summary, our gambles are insured by our coaching and veteran leadership, which increases the odds of the gambles paying off.
The result is that our team is more talented than it should be, given our draft positions.
The proof is in the pudding: Fisher and his "raw-ness"; Kelce in the 3rd; Peters and his 'issues'; Ware and West as UDFA's....etc..