- Joined
- Jun 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,308
In 2010 I was a Bradford guy. I also really liked Suh, but I thought Bradford was on the same talent level as Suh and played a more important division. After the 2010 rookie of the year season I felt vindicated. Then 2011 happens. Then 2012 was a solid year for what he had around him. 2013 he started to turn the corner, then he got hurt. My question is, how much further along would Bradford be without the 2 years of Spags/Devaney? While Devaney drafted some good players (Long, Laurinaitis, Fletcher, Bradford, Saffold, Quinn, Kendricks) he had some huge misses and in some cases reached for guys (although it's impossible to prove if a player was a reach). Then Spags and his inexperienced, ineffective staff did a poor job of developing talent. His scared to lose approach seemed to rub off on guys. His inability to scheme a young talent like Quinn into a game is a prime example.
So with Snead's ability to draft and Fisher's ability to develop, would the whole Bradford debate be different?
So with Snead's ability to draft and Fisher's ability to develop, would the whole Bradford debate be different?