Maybe he was better than "some" of the receivers we had. But if he wasn't playing head and shoulders above every guy, why waste the opportunity to give the younger guys reps? Alas, I find it really hard to believe that if he would have helped the team that much that they would have willfully kept him on the bench. Nothing written or observed about Fisher's regime has ever hinted to the fact that they looked at year 1 or 2 as rebuilding or "lost" years. Plenty has been written about Fisher being unwilling to let them believe they weren't there to win and hellbent on letting competition decide a player's fate. Have some guys managed to get in the doghouse? Sure. But, going 7-9-1 year 1 was a bit of an over achievement for a team one year past the Spags debacle, so I doubt they kept Steve off the field because he wasn't their guy. If they are so enamored with "their" guys, I'm sure they could have found a receiver that had played during Fisher's time with the Titans. Oh and I know we all know what sacrificing talent for "your guy" looks like. That's how we ended up with the term "FOSL."