villagewarrior
04-28-2008, 05:30 PM
I was listening to 610 (unfortunately) this afternoon and a caller said he gave the Chiefs a D grade mostly because of Jared Allen had to be traded away but also because the Chiefs ended up not getting the starters that they said they were looking for entering the weekend. And this got me thinking that we, as fans, need to understand where coaches come from when they talk about "starters".
First, and this is something I heard Bill Kuharich say earlier, but if a player starts, but then only gets a few snaps a game, is he really a starter? If a linebacker starts the game but then immediately goes out of the game for an extra defensive back due to an offensive package and doesn't return, who was more valuable that day, the linebacker who started but didn't play much or the defensive back who didn't start but played nearly the entire game? Having interacted with a few college coaching staffs, I know that they feel they have to determine who the starting lineups are pretty much just for the pre-game introductions.
Second, I think this draft produces three sure-fire "starters": Dorsey, Albert, and Flowers. Morgan, Franklin and Richardson will have a shot to earn starting jobs over the summer and fall camps, but even if they don't start, chances are they will receive extensive playing time. Charles, Cottam and Robinson also figure to receive extensive playing time, and Johnston is going to get every opportunity to come in and lock down a backup defensive end job.
That's ten of the twelve players drafted, and the other two guys, Carr and Merritt, are developmental, practice squad guys, as is Johnston. Carr and Johnston will both have great opportunities to make the squad when they really don't have any business doing so, but because of the weakness at their positions they have a great shot.
So really, if you look at it, the Chiefs maybe did not get the 5-6 starters they were going for (or maybe they did, too early to tell), but they got 11 guys who will make the squad and will play a lot.
First, and this is something I heard Bill Kuharich say earlier, but if a player starts, but then only gets a few snaps a game, is he really a starter? If a linebacker starts the game but then immediately goes out of the game for an extra defensive back due to an offensive package and doesn't return, who was more valuable that day, the linebacker who started but didn't play much or the defensive back who didn't start but played nearly the entire game? Having interacted with a few college coaching staffs, I know that they feel they have to determine who the starting lineups are pretty much just for the pre-game introductions.
Second, I think this draft produces three sure-fire "starters": Dorsey, Albert, and Flowers. Morgan, Franklin and Richardson will have a shot to earn starting jobs over the summer and fall camps, but even if they don't start, chances are they will receive extensive playing time. Charles, Cottam and Robinson also figure to receive extensive playing time, and Johnston is going to get every opportunity to come in and lock down a backup defensive end job.
That's ten of the twelve players drafted, and the other two guys, Carr and Merritt, are developmental, practice squad guys, as is Johnston. Carr and Johnston will both have great opportunities to make the squad when they really don't have any business doing so, but because of the weakness at their positions they have a great shot.
So really, if you look at it, the Chiefs maybe did not get the 5-6 starters they were going for (or maybe they did, too early to tell), but they got 11 guys who will make the squad and will play a lot.