Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 615148">Here's an example of a lost-forest-for-the-tree response:Borland retired before the draft.  Pat Willis as well.  That's not the same scenario I posed.Now on to the actual response:The example you were searching for was Justin Smith.  He was gesturing retirement before the draft.  Teammates were  trying to convince him otherwise, which is never a good sign.  His decision had not come down by draft day.  That's a big red flag that requires close scrutiny.  Then he in fact retired after the draft.Without getting into SFs depth chart, which you're free to do if you like to ascertain the full  range of SF's top needs, Justin Smith was 35 years old, soon to be 36, as the draft approached.  Even if he came back, the likelihood of another season after that was slim.  That's a major hole to fill on a par with Peppers as in the previous example.Clearly with Willis and Borland fleeing that defense's sinking ship, and several key FAs gone to greener pastures, Smith's possible retirement would not be a singular concern, however his replacement should have been on the list of top needs.  What did they do?  They drafted Armstead in the first round.  Even if Smith came back for one last rodeo, Armstead gets a year in the system to develop, something he needs.  Draft and develop is not just for low picks and UDFAs; that should be evident from the Packers first round picks of the last several years.Which brings me to this, which is not directed specifically at you:On the one hand, the majority of fans and commentators laud Thompson for his draft-and-develop, stay-young approach.  But then when it comes to the draft, the idea of picking a DE as a 2016 replacement for Peppers, as a for instance, is discounted because that replacement is not needed now.  If he had been making gestures toward retirement as in my previous example, DE should have been moved right to the top of the list along with ILB and CB.Need, when it comes to star players with no promising stud on the bench, is a minimum two-year proposition if one's expectations are reasonable.When replacing a franchise QB, it's 3 years.For instance, I think we can agree the Patriots know their way around replenishing a winning roster.  In the 2014 draft, the Patriots took Garoppolo (henceforth referred to as JG) in the second round.  Brady was 36 years old at the time, and he wasn't even making any gestures toward retirement as was Favre.  JG, being a rookie out of Eastern Illinois, was a developmental pick, like any QB of the last decade or so except perhaps Luck.  There was no need to take him according to the conventional wisdom.  They could have used that day one pick elsewhere and signed a journeyman QB for modest money who would have served just as well, probably better, than JG in 2014 if Brady went down.So, why do it?  Two related reasons.  First, by the time Gorappolo's rookie deal is up Brady will be 40 years old.  Second, and equally important, is that if the Pats don't like his progression as he gets through this season, they get a second shot at finding a successor.  Brady's suspension, if it sticks, is somewhat opportune in the respect that it will determine whether that second shot is necessary.  If Flynn has to take over to try to save the early season, the Pats will be on the hunt once more.  And if that need meets opportunity in the form of a QB they like dropping to their spot in the first round in 2016, you can bet they will take him.Nothing will convince me otherwise:  when the franchise QB hit his mid-30's, and especially if he's mumbling about retirement, succession planning goes to the top of the needs list.Back in the day, very good QBs got traded with some regularity.  Nowadays, you don't even see decent-but-less-than-very-good QBs hit the FA market; they get overpaid for fear of what might happen in trying to replace them.  Palmer, Bradford, Foles...up, down, injured...is as close as you get in the market.  Oh, Smith to KC...but you must have a defense and good surrounding talent to make that work.  He's not going to carry you.If the Packer performance during Rodgers absence in 2013 didn't prove how absolutely paramount the QB position is in today's game, I guess nothing will.  I take that back...how about the Colt's season between Manning and Luck?Internet or not, I'm not sure how I could make this clearer.</blockquote>

Verification

Members online

Total: 82 (members: 3, guests: 79)

Latest posts

First Round Pick #23 - Matthew Golden WR - Texas
- Latest: gopkrs
- Yesterday at 10:41 PM
Draft Talk
2025 NFL Schedule Release
- Latest: Calebs Revenge
- Yesterday at 10:20 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Isaiah Simmons is COMING
- Latest: Calebs Revenge
- Yesterday at 7:48 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
NFC North Predictions
- Latest: Calebs Revenge
- Yesterday at 6:12 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Da Bears new head coach!!!!!
- Latest: Calebs Revenge
- Yesterday at 4:42 PM
NFL Discussions