Originally Posted by nero THE zero
Is there precedent for teams not starting their 1st round picks (aside from instances where you might sit a QB for a year)? Even the best teams in the NFL have holes where a 1st round pick is going to/should be better than the guy ahead of him.
Seems like a first round draft pick who can't start would be an indictment on your scouting more so than a statement of your depth/talent level.
If every year a team has a spot where a rookie is automatically better than what they have every single year then they are not good enough. Even with the salary cap and free agency, the better organizations are not running out rookies who don't have prove better than an existing player.
A late 1st or 2nd round WR is not just waltzing and taking Kevin Walter's job w/o excellent performance. We have gotten there and it is a good thing, not a bad one.