|
Entangled parameters abound...
When I look for the “critical need,” I try and figure out which segment of the game would immediately improve our chances to win. There is certainly a ripple effect and many segments overlap.
For example, better ST coverage means worse field position for The Enemy, which means a longer field for the Defense to defend.
Or better WRs means fewer punts, which means less time for the D on the field.
Or a better punter, which means fewer line drive punts. However, since DV has already addressed the Baker Vs Cheek issue, this is a moot point.
I see the most “bang for the buck” in ST coverage units giving the D a longer field to defend. I cannot quibble with anyone picking LBs [that would be my second choice], but I personally think a longer field can make our LBs [and the entire Defense] a little bit better.
xoxo~
Gaz
Not quite as concerned about WR as he was a couple weeks ago.
|