I think we heavily over analyze the importance of any individual and the idea that every draft choice free agent acquisition, move or non-move is a piece of a complex and fragile overall strategy.
We tend to talk in terms of the big picture meaning of every decision, and what is being counted on, i.e. we must be counting on Warren or Lewis because we didn't draft a DE, and from the perspective that there is supposed to be a plan in place to guarantee there are absolutely no weaknesses.
I think this is backwards.
I think the reality is that each decision is made independently, based on what is the best way to improve the team.
Do we need rookie contributions? Of course we do, because we will have a number of rookies on the roster. I am certain that there is an expectation that many rookies will contribute, but they are competing for that opportunity. The only difference between a rookie and a veteran is that there are more accpetable reasons for a rookie to not earn a role, but still have one in the future.
The team, and any team, is a combination of strengths and weaknesses. If Cunningham or Spikes are not ready to play as rookies, there will be another player out there on the field. It is likely that the other player would create a greater weakness than we would have if those players were able to play at the maximum of their talent level as rookies, but the defense will need to deal with the strengths and weaknesses the players on the field bring to the table.
There is absolutely no question that there is enough talent on this team to win the SB. The question comes in how deep the weaknesses are. Yes, the rookies are expected to shore up some of the weaknesses on the roster, but if they do not someone else will be asked to. The goal is not perfection at every position, because that is simply unattainble.
I think too many people look at it backwards. That viewpoint is looking for holes and using the resources to plug them. I think it works the other way, that when the resources (draft choices, FA contracts, cap room) are used the purpose is to maximize the value of that resources, THEN form the team around the srengths and weaknesses you have assembled. I know this may sound vague, so here is an example.
Somewhere on this board there was a comment regarding the Chung draft choice, that went something like:
BB was comfortable with McKenzie in the 3rd instead of Laurenitis, even though there were many safeties left when he picked Chung and we could have had Laurenitis, and we already have 2 capable safeties.
IMO,this is not consistent with the way decisions are made. IMO, all it means is that Chung was the best football player on the board, and was seen as the best way to improve the team, given the other players on the roster at his position also taking into consideration how much better he was to the team than other players at his position who could be chosen later. IMO, Laurenitis wasn't valued anywhere near Chung, but the decision had nothing to do with guessing that McKenzie would be there.
I do not think that BB will ever take a player who he thinks will not contribute as much to the ability of the team to win simply because the bar is lower at that position. I recognize that at some positions (QB could be the only one) you will not take a player because he spot is blocked, but I don't think having a medicore starter ever causes that consideration (ie not taking Chung because Sanders is capable of being a starter).
I think that one consideration lost in most fans thought process is that if you look 3 years forward, the chance of any player still being on the roster, healthy and playing their best is not great. How many positions on this team would a future probowler not be able to get on the field at within 3 years?
